From: Jordi <mumismo@...>
Date: 2007-11-11T14:22:48+09:00
Subject: Re: method names in 1.9

On Nov 11, 2007 2:33 AM, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In message "Re: method names in 1.9"
>     on Sun, 11 Nov 2007 02:11:53 +0900, "David A. Black" <dblack@rubypal.com> writes:
>
> |> - send, invoke_method
>
> |I agree (no bang for safer version). I guess my favorite was send
> |(safe) with send! (dangerous). I'm not sure what the best solution is
> |if send is back to being the dangerous one.
>
> I don't think it's a good idea to inverse it for bang's sake.  It
> doesn't worth sacrifice compatibility.

I know that I'll be at best ignored by this comment but when I
discovered send, I thought it was how the object sends or emits some
kind of information to the outer world.
I discovered later that  Object.send means Object  __receives__ the
call of a method.

Creating a receive method now is a crazy idea of course, I only argue
that the name "send" may not be the best one.

What about invoke_method and invoke_method!,  send becaming deprecated
but usable till next big release, meaning invoke_method!  ?

--
Jordi Polo