From: dblack@...
Date: 2006-07-05T04:21:05+09:00
Subject: Re: About 1.9 #__method__ feature.

Hi --

On Wed, 5 Jul 2006, Logan Capaldo wrote:

>
> On Jul 4, 2006, at 2:53 PM, dblack@wobblini.net wrote:
>
>> 
>> Can you show me an example?  I'm still not understanding.  I'm
>> thinking of:
>>
>>  obj.funcall(:meth)
>> 
>> but maybe there's a different/new syntax for funcall?  Is it now a
>> top-level method?
>> 
>> 
>> David
>
> meth is the "top level" method.
>
> e.g.:
>
> class A
> def initialize
>    jump_up_and_down( ) # look, I'm calling a "function" (No explicit 
> receiver)
> end
> private
> def jump_up_and_down( )
>    ...
> end
> end
>
> That's why top level declared methods are private. It's to distinguish 
> "function" methods from method methods. Hence the name "funcall" (call a 
> "function")

I don't like it.  It seems wrong to go through a non-functional style
to tell an object to call something internally in a functional style,
when in fact the "style" only referred to the lexical and
typographical convention in the first place.

Besides, if jump_up_and_down were not private, it could still be
called with an implicit receiver in A#initialize.  I don't think that
puts it in a different category of method.

It also seems that the notion of a function (or "function method") is
emerging in Ruby as a kind of side effect of the new method names.  I
don't see anything here that can't be handled thoroughly without this
notion.


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!