From: "Wolfgang Nádasi-Donner" <wonado@...>
Date: 2007-01-20T02:45:09+09:00
Subject: Re: Minor Change Proposal for Classes 'Object' and 'Method'

Yukihiro Matsumoto schrieb:
> Why object_id?  Isn't it more useful to return the receiver itself,
> e.g.
> 
>   myhi.receiver  # => #<Hugo:0xb7d5ff40>
> 
> ?
> 
> And why should method_name return combination of class name and method
> name?  I think the method_name should return the method name only
> ("hi" for this case).  It may be useful to implement separate method
> to get a class that holds the method.

I agree, because I'm only interested in the information at all. If you find a 
better format or better way to present it, its fine.
One question is open for 'myhi.receiver  # => #<Hugo:0xb7d5ff40>'.

First, the  format requires a pattern matching on the result, if the object-id 
ist needed only. May be two seperate methods are better, as you suggested for 
'method_name'.

In additon, a format for the seperate method, that returns information about the 
class that holds the method, may be complicated for singleton methods. An 
example is '#<Method: #<Hugo:0x2ae6e54>.private_hi>'.

Wolfgang N�dasi-Donner (WoN�Do)