From: dblack@...
Date: 2007-01-21T06:59:16+09:00
Subject: Re: Minor Change Proposal for Classes 'Object' and 'Method'

Hi --

On Sun, 21 Jan 2007, dblack@wobblini.net wrote:

> My problem with using "receiver" this way is that it's detached from
> the process of receiving a message.  It's really the object that
> *would* be, or will be, or could be the receiver.
>
> I just foresee lots of need to clarify what one means when one says
> "the receiver".  I do think that something indicating "bindee",
> essentially, would make more sense, since what's being reported is
> really the fact that the method is bound to this object -- which can
> vary independently of the question of whether the object ever actually
> receives the message.

I'll add that, though it's a subtle point, I don't think that objects
receive methods.  They receive messages, and act on the basis of those
messages (execute a like-named method or method_missing, or raise an
exception).

So I would be reluctant to have any method claim that it was returning
the receiver of a method object.


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)