From: dblack@...
Date: 2007-01-21T04:26:44+09:00
Subject: Re: Minor Change Proposal for Classes 'Object' and 'Method'

Hi --

On Sun, 21 Jan 2007, gwtmp01@mac.com wrote:

>
> On Jan 20, 2007, at 1:38 PM, dblack@wobblini.net wrote:
>> I'm not quite understanding the idea of meth.receiver, though.  How
>> does that fit in with the idea of the receiver being whatever object a
>> given message is sent to (which could, in most cases, be any of many
>> objects)?
>
> We are talking about the information encapsulated in an instance
> of Method, which currently isn't accessible via introspection (unless
> you want to get creative and parse the output of the inspect string).
>
> a = [1,2]
> m1 = a.method('first')
>
> m1.receiver	# a, i.e. [1, 2]

I guess I find that a bit anomalous because it's calling a the
"receiver" of a message it may or may not ever have received.  I'm not
sure what a better term is, though.


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)