From: Brian Mitchell <binary42@...>
Date: 2005-09-29T14:19:39+09:00
Subject: Re: Python to Ruby: Two puzzlements...

On 9/28/05, Jeff Wood <jeff.darklight@gmail.com> wrote:
> yeah ... the point I was trying to make was simply the point about the
> implicit reference to self ... any variable you access, any method you call,
> anything ... that doesn't have an explicit receiver specified, will use the
> implicit reference to self...
>
> the point of the accessor was simply to create the variable, and methods in
> as terse a chop as I could ... but, yes, I do agree that I didn't actually
> use all I created, so there wasn't any specific gain from it.
>
> ... uh ... did that make *ANY* sense ? Just trying to help. =)
>
> j.
>

It made enough sense. However, I wouldn't call it all about the
receiver. I would call it scope or binding based. Each binding then
has a special meaning for self and thus the implicit receiver. There
are also other special things to each binding like super.

Brian.

> On 9/28/05, James Edward Gray II <james@grayproductions.net> wrote:
> >
> > On Sep 28, 2005, at 7:15 PM, Jeff Wood wrote:
> >
> > > oops, that should have been
> > >
> > > attr_accessor :a
> > >
> > > ( which is again a method call against self which because it's inside
> > > of a class definition *IS* the class object that's being
> > > built/modified )
> >
> > I'm not sure what you are trying to show here. You build accessor
> > methods but you never call them, as you just set the instance
> > variable directly.
> >
> > James Edward Gray II
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> "http://ruby-lang.org -- do you ruby?"
>
> Jeff Wood
>
>