From: Christian Neukirchen Date: 2005-08-31T01:07:49+09:00 Subject: Re: Method behaves differently when called using #send "David A. Black" writes: >>> My problem with that is that the point of __send__ is to keep the name >>> send available for user-defined methods (the same logic that has led >>> to the freeing up of "id" through the creation of object_id). >>> >>> I think adding special significance to the __'s is too much of an >>> afterthought, and also would reintroduce the same problem for people >>> who want to write methods called "send". >> >> No, not really... if you want others to allow reusing "send", you can >> still call __fcall__ (no private). > > I'm afraid I'm losing track. __fcall__ would be the same as send, and > __send__ the same as fcall? I think I must be getting it wrong.... :-) > > I think that in every case throughout the language, if both abc and > __abc__ exist, they should be synonymous. Ok, then we disagree. :-) I wanted #send to be the same as #__fcall__ and #__send__ not to respect privateness (the __ is the dangerous sign for that method). >> Assuming the #send (no private)/#send! (everything) approach was >> accepted, this could get very confusing. > > I'm not sure why (one method does one thing; another does another; it > seems very simple), but it's a moot point as Matz doesn't like it. It is interesting you want #abc and #__abc__ to do the same, but don't care if #send sends a mail and #send! a message... > David -- Christian Neukirchen http://chneukirchen.org