From: dblack@... Date: 2006-12-31T21:20:34+09:00 Subject: Re: Little Things Hi -- On Sun, 31 Dec 2006, Eric Hodel wrote: > On Dec 31, 2006, at 24:04, Wilson Bilkovich wrote: >> On 12/31/06, Rob Sanheim wrote: >>> obj.send(:foo) # will call only public >>> obj.send!(:foo) # will bypass private/protected, like the current send. >>> >>> reads better then funcall to me, at least. >> >> Yes please. That's perfect. > > No please. That doesn't match the behavior of any other #foo, #foo! that I > know of. #send and #funcall match what the written methods look like > perfectly. But #foo/#foo! behaviors don't have to match each other, except at the very abstract level of one being "dangerous". I've always thought that including private methods vs. not including them was a good candidate for dangerous, but Matz didn't agree in this case so I don't think it will happen. #send and #funcall sort of match what the written methods *might* look like (sometimes; not in the case of setter methods, and not for public methods where you used a receiver) if you called them. It just seems to me to be a pretty tenuous connection. David -- Q. What is THE Ruby book for Rails developers? A. RUBY FOR RAILS by David A. Black (http://www.manning.com/black) (See what readers are saying! http://www.rubypal.com/r4rrevs.pdf) Q. Where can I get Ruby/Rails on-site training, consulting, coaching? A. Ruby Power and Light, LLC (http://www.rubypal.com)