From: ara.t.howard@...
Date: 2007-01-20T04:46:38+09:00
Subject: Re: Minor Change Proposal for Classes 'Object' and 'Method'

On Sat, 20 Jan 2007, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

> Hi,
>
> In message "Re: Minor Change Proposal for Classes 'Object' and 'Method'"
>    on Sat, 20 Jan 2007 01:52:36 +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> writes:
>
> |Why object_id?  Isn't it more useful to return the receiver itself,
> |e.g.
> |
> |  myhi.receiver  # => #<Hugo:0xb7d5ff40>
> |
> |?
>
> Wolfgang's proposal can be divided into three methods.
>
>  #receiver that returns the bound object of the method object.
>  #name that returns the name of the method object.
>  and a method that returns the class which holds the method.
>
> Does anybody have good name candidate for the last one?  I have
> already implemented the first two methods in the local copy of the
> repository.

object.where? "method_name"  # returns nil if not defined

object.definer "method_name"  # same as above


another idea:

   m = object.def "method_name"  # an uber-bound method object

   p m.name      #=> "method_name"
   m.call *a, &b #=> same as object.method_name *a, &b

kind regards.

-a
-- 
we can deny everything, except that we have the possibility of being better.
simply reflect on that.
- the dalai lama