Re: new method dispatch rule (matz' proposal)

On Thu, 2007-01-25 at 07:02, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> In message "Re: new method dispatch rule (matz' proposal)"
>     on Thu, 25 Jan 2007 13:58:25 +0900, Evan Phoenix <[e-mail]> writes:
> 
> |The more this discussion goes on, the more I worry that Joe Q Public  
> |programmer isn't going to be able to properly grasp these new rules.
> |
> |Everyone here is pretty much the creme de la creme of ruby core  
> |developers and we're all still having troubles get our minds around  
> |it (or at least I am).
> |
> |Let me propose a change to the rules that might help clean them up.  
> |Change rules 3 and 4 to be one rule that reads:
> |
> |"If functional style calling is used, say foo(1), foo is looked up  
> |first in the method table of the defining class as a private method.  
> |If it is not found, normal dispatch occurs."
> 
> I think we need to summarize the current proposed schemes:

Could you also summarize the intent behind these schemes?  Rules are
just the means for achieving a goal -- what is the goal itself?  What
deficiencies of the status quo will these proposals address?

If you decide on one of these schemes, what will this mean for Ruby
programmers?  What will the guidelines/best practices be about when to
use public vs. private methods, and functional vs. ordinary calls?

Josh