From: dblack@...
Date: 2006-07-08T01:36:56+09:00
Subject: Re: About 1.9 #__method__ feature.

Hi --

On Sat, 8 Jul 2006, dblack@wobblini.net wrote:

> Hi --
>
> On Fri, 7 Jul 2006, ara.t.howard@noaa.gov wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 7 Jul 2006, Logan Capaldo wrote:
>> 
>>> Steal another name from lisp?
>>> 
>>> obj.apply(:meth, 1, 2, 3)
>>> 
>>> It's not send, but it's not funcall either.
>>> 
>>> obj apply your :meth function to the arguments 1,2,3
>>> 
>>> Just throwing stuff out there, feel free to ignore me :)
>> 
>> i was just about to suggest that name.  still, there is nothing which 
>> implies
>> are receiverless context sensitive call that can access private methods 
>> with
>> that name is there?
>
> No -- which is why I like it much more than 'funcall' and such :-)  It
> doesn't introduce the criterion of "receiverlessness" into a situation
> where the concept of having or not having a receiver isn't relevant.

Just to follow up and clarify:

I'm not saying I think the method name shouldn't express the fact that
it can call private methods.  That's why I've been advocating "send!"
(the "dangerous" version of send).  I just think that
"receiverlessness" is a matter of concrete, visible coding style, and
not a language-level concept that has any meaning apart from how
method calls are actually expressed.


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!