Ummmm... class object? Like, not the instance of the class, but the
class object itself.
Would that be too transparent? 
(Or, alternatively... just plain
wrong... if I'm being slow.)
M.T.
Creepy. Earlier today I was thinking we could just call it _class in written communication and it could be the method name as well and everyone could "pronounce" it however they wanted <g>.
···
On Aug 12, 2006, at 3:25 PM, Trans wrote:
We could add some magic that every method matching /_class/ returns
the singleton class...foo.eigen_class
foo.singleton_class
foo.ueber_classHehe. That's fitting. Well, we could drop all pretenses
foo._class
And call it the "under class".
T.
