From: dblack@...
Date: 2006-12-31T22:09:37+09:00
Subject: Re: Little Things

Hi --

On Sun, 31 Dec 2006, Mauricio Fernandez wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 09:20:34PM +0900, dblack@wobblini.net wrote:
>> On Sun, 31 Dec 2006, Eric Hodel wrote:
>>> On Dec 31, 2006, at 24:04, Wilson Bilkovich wrote:
>>>> On 12/31/06, Rob Sanheim <rsanheim@gmail.com> 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.
>
> Actually, in 1.9 you have send, funcall, __send and __send!.
> These last ones might disappear at any time, but my hunch is that there's a
> chance they'll stay. But it's just the gut feeling of somebody who's been
> tracking Ruby 1.9 for a while and has seen features come by and go.

Thanks for the update.  I really must try to stay more on the edge of
1.9 :-)


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)