From: dblack@...
Date: 2006-07-04T01:00:30+09:00
Subject: Re: About 1.9 #__method__ feature.

Hi --

On Tue, 4 Jul 2006, Mauricio Fernandez wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 04, 2006 at 12:39:12AM +0900, 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"?
>
> hmmm the link between "might be called externally despite being private" and
> "functional" is subtle, to say the least;
> #invoke_private_method seems much clearer (even if inaccurate) and is nearly
> as long if you want to discourage its use.

I think it's inaccurate to the point of really not being usable.

I admit I'm still a fan of send/send! but I guess they're long gone
:-)


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!