From: James Edward Gray II <james@...>
Date: 2007-01-08T22:10:16+09:00
Subject: Re: Little Things

On Jan 8, 2007, at 6:43 AM, dblack@wobblini.net wrote:

> Hi --
>
> On Mon, 8 Jan 2007, Evan Weaver wrote:
>
>>
>> Regarding 'funcall', I would rather support a 'send'-derived word  
>> which
>> reflects the message-passing nature of what is really going on.  
>> Also, my
>> brain reads 'funcall' most intuitively as 'FUNCtion ALL'. However I
>> think the tradition of ! modifying the receiver makes 'send!' for
>> private methods not good. I don't have a better suggestion, though.
>
> ! doesn't mean modifying the receiver, though.  It means "dangerous".
> It's used often for modifying receivers, but that's never been what
> Matz says it means; that's just one form of danger.

For example, exit!() does not modify a receiver.

James Edward Gray II