From: Robert Klemme <shortcutter@...>
Date: 2007-01-21T03:15:07+09:00
Subject: Re: Minor Change Proposal for Classes 'Object' and 'Method'

On 20.01.2007 18:54, Phrogz wrote:
> Robert Klemme wrote:
>> On 19.01.2007 19:33, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
>>> 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.
>> I opt for "defining_class", because this precisely states what it
>> returns.  Some might find it a bit much of typing but I think we have
>> much worse cases in Ruby (attr_accessor for example, which is much more
>> often used).  If someone can come up with an equally clear name which is
>> shorter, that's fine with me.
> 
> I have two objections to this:
> 1) The fact that there are some methods which are a pain to type does
> not mean that we should feel OK about making all methods a pain to
> type. Certainly, verbose naming matters less of the method would be
> infrequently used (as this one would). But we should continually strive
> for a balance between clarity and terseness (and I see that you
> implicitly agree with that, given your last sentence).

Exactly.

> 2) If a method is rebound to a new object, what is desired (I think) is
> the current 'parent' class of the method, not the one where it was
> defined. If derivatives of the word 'defined' are in the method name,
> this (edge) case will be confusing.

I am not sure I understand what you mean by "parent class".  If you 
refer to the class of the instance the method is bound to then that 
would be available via meth.receiver.class.  When rebinding a method to 
another receiver then the defining class does not change, does it?  Did 
I miss something?

> If we're going verbose, I prefer #owning_class. Striving for terseness,
> however, I prefer #owner. To me, that's pretty clear.

In my ears "owner" sounds more like the instance ("receiver"). 
"owning_class" seems clearer although I still prefer "defining_class" as 
it seems a bit clearer to me.  YMMV though...

Kind regards

	robert