From: dblack@...
Date: 2006-07-04T21:26:00+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 00:59:21 +0900, dblack@wobblini.net writes:
>
> |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?
>
> I refer a method invocation without a receiver specified as
> "functional style" because it looks like function calls in other
> languages.  The name "funcall" and "invoke_functional_method" reflect
> that term.

I'm not clear on what you mean.  Don't these all have receivers?

I would still say that "send" is a better fit for explicitly sending a
message to an object.  With 'call' and 'invoke' you're saying to the
object: here's a message *and* here's what you should do with it.  I
think the caller should send the message -- even a meta-message, as
with send -- and the object should decide what's going to happen.


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!