From: Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>
Date: 2006-07-07T23:23:39+09:00
Subject: Re: About 1.9 #__method__ feature.

Hi,

In message "Re: About 1.9 #__method__ feature."
    on Fri, 7 Jul 2006 22:49:11 +0900, dblack@wobblini.net writes:

|> "send" and "funcall" are both taken from lisp function names; "send"
|> invokes a method; "funcall" invokes a function.  In Ruby, "send"
|> invokes a method; "funcall" invokes a method in functional style.
|
|Then it's not really taken from Lisp :-)

OK, it's inspired by Lisp functions.

|I'm probably going in circles, but I'm not seeing a functional-style
|method call here:
|
|    obj.funcall(:meth)
|
|funcall itself isn't being called functionally, and meth isn't being
|called at all -- that is, you don't see this in the program:
|
|    meth
|
|and therefore it's impossible, I think, to talk about the "style" of
|the "method invocation".

Hmm, I think I understand your point.  Let me think about it.

|If I'm not convincing you, maybe I can suggest:
|
|   invoke_method_functionally

I agree this is better than invoke_functional_method.  I am still
looking for the better name.

|instead of invoke_functional_method.  I honestly don't think either of
|them is perfect, but it would be probably be better not to introduce
|the separate notion of a "functional method", since the *same* method
|can be invoked in different ways.

Point taken (about invoke_method_functionally).

							matz.