From: dblack@...
Date: 2006-07-04T00:59:21+09:00
Subject: Re: About 1.9 #__method__ feature.

Hi --

On Tue, 4 Jul 2006, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

> Hi,
>
> In message "Re: About 1.9 #__method__ feature."
>    on Tue, 4 Jul 2006 00:31:03 +0900, dblack@wobblini.net writes:
>
> |Speaking of send: is the 'funcall' name definite?  Are you still
> |interested in hearing arguments against it? :-)
>
> Do you have a proposal for any alternatives?  By the way, have you
> noticed the alias "invoke_functional_method"?

What bugs me is the mixing of two different paradigms: message-sending
and method-calling.  I know they are closely related :-)  But it seems
odd to use both paradigms for, essentially, the same thing:

   obj.send(:meth)
   obj.funcall(:meth)

It feels like this symbolic operation should be understood either as
message-sending (my preference) or method-calling, but not alternate
between the two.  And the names don't encapsulate the difference
between the two operations (private methods included or not).

I haven't noticed invoke_functional_method.  I admit I'm still unclear
on the (new?) use of the notion of 'function' in addition to
'method'....  How do you characterize a functional method, in this
context?


David

-- 
  "To fully realize the potential of Rails, it's crucial that you take
    the time to fully understand Ruby--and with "Ruby for Rails" David
       has provided just what you need to help you achieve that goal."
       -- DAVID HEINEMEIER HANSSON, in the foreword to RUBY FOR RAILS.
   Complete foreword & sample chapters at http://www.manning.com/black!