From: "David A. Black" <dblack@...>
Date: 2005-08-30T22:02:48+09:00
Subject: Re: Method behaves differently when called using #send

Hi --

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005, Eric Mahurin wrote:

> --- Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> In message "Re: Method behaves differently when called using
>> #send"
>>     on Tue, 30 Aug 2005 01:03:12 +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto
>> <matz@ruby-lang.org> writes:
>>
>> |Because I felt they are different, as I said above.  I admit
>> fcall is
>> |not the best name, but very few people would use it.
>>
>> OK, here's another idea.  How about
>>
>>   foo.send(:bar)
>>
>> calls only public methods and
>>
>>   send(:bar)
>>
>> calls private methods of the receiver as well?
>>
>> 							matz.
>
[...]
>
> I think simply separate methods is a better choice than the
> confusion/complexity of the above.  It also preserves one of
> the main functionalities of send - bypassing method protection
> (private/protected).

I think Matz's suggestion above actually simplifies the picture.  It
would just make send a real programmatic equivalent of the dot
operator:

   class C
     def m
       n                # yes
       send(:n)         # yes
       self.n           # no
       self.send(:n)    # no
     end

     def n
     end

     private n
   end

   c = C.new
   c.m                  # yes
   c.send(:m)           # yes
   c.n                  # no
   c.send(:n)           # no
   c.instance_eval { n }          # yes
   c.instance_eval { send(:n) }   # yes

(Give or take dealing with the issues of =-methods one way or the
other.)

It would mean that bypassing a private method was no *easier* with
send than without it, but still possible either way.


David

-- 
David A. Black
dblack@wobblini.net