From: Jordi <mumismo@...>
Date: 2007-11-13T19:45:07+09:00
Subject: Re: method names in 1.9

On Nov 13, 2007 7:28 PM, Michal Suchanek <hramrach@centrum.cz> wrote:
> On 12/11/2007, David A. Black <dblack@rubypal.com> wrote:
> > Hi --
> >
> > On Mon, 12 Nov 2007, Jordi wrote:
> >
> > > Summing it up:
> > >
> > > - Surprising or not, sending messages is not the same that calling
> > > methods in Ruby (there is  a real difference, see method_missing email
> > > of Matthew in this thread).
> > > - Honoring visibility is not the same that don't honoring it (obviously)
> > >
> > > So, we can have potentially 4 operations in Ruby 1.8.x:
> > >
> > > 1.- Call method honoring visibility
> > > 2.- Call method not honoring visibility
> > > 3.- Send message honoring visibility
> > > 4.- Send message not honoring visibility
> >
> > I don't see how 1/2 differ from 3/4, except in the terminology. What
> > we call "calling a method" on an object *is* sending a message.
> > There's no choice on the programmer's part. The distinction is really
> > from the object's perspective.
> >
> >
>
> As far as I can understand it there are two features we might (not)
> want when sending a message:
>  - to honor visibility
>  - to let the object handle the message with method_missing if there
> is no matching method defined
>
> 0) Normally, the . operator uses both features. There might be uses
> for other options as well.
>
> In my view there is option needed
>  1) for sending a message as if it was done with the . operator but
> with dynamic method name without using eval (at least directly)
>  2) for sending a message as above that is not handled by
> method_missing. This defeats the use of proxy objects but will be
> probably useful for implementation of the proxy objects.
>

I can't understand your last sentence.
I also can not think of a real world case where I would like to bypass
method_missing (you can just don't implement it)

I think all this discussion is not that difficult.

We need "." for normal message sending
and "send" or a more accurate name for not honoring visibility for
compatibility.


Anything else should be a synonym of one of the above.


And yes, you are right, naming conventions are important. That's why
"invoke_method" is awful as well as "send" when we are receiving. Not
to mention that send should have ! (maybe not-honoring visibility send
was an implementation error long time ago and not a feature)

--
Jordi