instance-class isn't right either. It's a node without a tag. The class that makes this node doesn't have a tag, so in that sense the tag for the node is anonymous. You can't have no tag, you need to have something; and it has to be a valid XML identifier.
So far, anonymous seems like the best choice. On 2009-11-20, at 17:49, Henry Minsky wrote: > I didn't like 'anonymous' at all. I was thinking of 'instance-class' but > that's pretty un-informative too. > > > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 5:03 PM, P T Withington <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Good point. >> >> Back to anonymous? >> >> Is there a better term? >> >> On 2009-11-20, at 17:07, André Bargull wrote: >> >>> I disagree about this point: >>> I wouldn't call it a `singleton`, because in case of replication the >> "instance class" might have multiple instances and therefore isn't a >> singleton. >>> >>> >>>> [laszlo-reviews -> laszlo-dev] >>>> >>>> I'll try to look at this in just a bit, but I had a thought: >>>> >>>> I wonder if instead of `anonymous` we should use `singleton`, I think >> that might be more descriptive/accurate. An "instance class" as we have >> been calling it is really an instance of a singleton class, a class that >> will only ever have this one instance as a member, so we don't give it a tag >> name (which is why we think of it as anonymous). >> >> > > > -- > Henry Minsky > Software Architect > [email protected]
