From: daz <dooby@...10.karoo.co.uk>
Date: 2005-08-30T07:36:27+09:00
Subject: Re: Method behaves differently when called using #send


Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> David A. Black writes (to daz):
>
> |I don't think it's an overloading, just another (i.e., other than
> |receiver-changing) nuance of the "more dangerous" concept.  I actually
> |didn't understand Matz's concern fully.  I assume it's not
> |specifically about the fact that send! is not destructive, since
> |that's OK in a bang method.
>
> The point is not being destructive or not, since it's OK in a bang
> method as you described (by quoting me).  The point is that I don't
> really feel it's dangerous to call private methods by the new method
> (#fcall, or send!).  They are just different.  I'm hesitating put a
> bang sign to something I don't feel dangerous.
>
> matz.
>


Hi Matz,

Thanks for accepting that David was using your definition
of bang! methods (sorry, David).  I found it here:
http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/2331

I consulted my thought process for the definition I use
and it yielded "Immediate" (literally "nothing in between").

Dictionary definition (1) from:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=immediate

  1a : acting or being without the intervention of another object [...]
  4a : occurring, acting, or accomplished without loss [...] of time

Dictionary definition (2) from:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=immediate

   1. Occurring at once; instant
   6. Acting or occurring without the interposition of another agency
      or object; direct

Interestingly, the description "immediate methods" seems to cover
your usage of the bang suffix more closely than "dangerous methods".
Maybe your thought process understands clearly what it means but
there is (understandably) difficulty with verbalisation of thought
even in one's native language.

"Immediate method" describes all the bang methods I can find
(which have no intervening object) but also describes #exit!
(exit instantly) perfectly, IMO.
"Direct method" would be almost the same.

It would not cover the proposed #send! - this is why it touched
an inner nerve and prompted me to question the proposal.

However, I _do_ like it because it's short _and_ it contains s-e-n-d
but, if you say it's not going to be used very often, shortness
isn't so much of a priority, IMHO.


daz