Re: Module#define_method "send hack" fails with Ruby 1.9

[e-mail] writes:

> I'm still not happy about #funcall.  How is one supposed to remember
> which (#send or #funcall) is which?  There are a few things in Ruby
> where "you just have to memorize it" -- like the true/false arguments
> to #instance_methods, or the differences between Proc.new and lambda.
> I've always felt that these are soft spots in the language.
> #send/#funcall seems to me to be in the same category.
>

#funcall breaks the rules.  That makes it "fun".  ;-)

> Also, are methods now also called functions?  That would be a pretty
> huge change in terminology.

I agree.  I suspect it was named after `rb_funcall', though.

FWIW, I'm not a fan of the new #send/#funcall thing either, but more
because it simply breaks too much.  Even if it's slated as a 2.0
release.  rubygems and instiki are two things I've tried recently.

Instead of renaming #send to #funcall and reimplementing #send in a
crippled way, wouldn't it be better to leave #send alone, and just add
a new method that respects the method's protectedness/privateness?

No, I don't have a name for it.