From: Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...>
Date: 2004-05-13T07:36:54+09:00
Subject: Re: Proposal: Object#send(nil) -> self

On Thursday, May 13, 2004, 1:10:03 AM, Hal wrote:

> I suppose it makes sense if you think of 'obj.x' and then imagine
> stripping off the '.x' -- but in the explicit sense of sending a message
> via #send, it seems counter-intuitive. Why shouldn't obj.send(nil) just
> return nil, for instance? The typical message sent to an object does not
> result in that same object or even an object of that class (yes,
> sometimes, but not always).

> Anyhow, I can see that obj.send(:self) might make a kind of sense, but
> I don't know that it would help the original poster. (Was that you??)

Original poster was me, and I accept that #self(nil) is unpopular, and
I agree there's something wrong with it.  And yes, #send(:self) would
help me, and appeals to me aesthetically as well.  But I doubt the
name is acceptable.  So what about (courtesy of Sascha)

  class Object
    def yourself
      self
    end
  end

  ...

  xyz.send(:yourself)

  # and of course

  xyz.yourself

I don't care much for the name, but it's a Smalltalk thing, and
unless Smalltalk people think it sux, then it probably grows on you.
At least it is unlikely to conflict with a user's class; who has ever
created a method called 'yourself'?

So, OP is satisfied, and we can probably wrap this thread up now :)

Cheers,
Gavin