From: dblack@...
Date: 2007-01-22T02:03:35+09:00
Subject: Re: Minor Change Proposal for Classes 'Object' and 'Method'

---2049402039-198629628-1169399012=:4065
Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="-2049402039-198629628-1169399012=:4065"

  This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
  while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

---2049402039-198629628-1169399012=:4065
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE

Hi --

On Mon, 22 Jan 2007, Wolfgang N=E1dasi-Donner wrote:

> dblack@wobblini.net schrieb:
>> In any case,
>> I included it because it demonstrates that there's a "meta" or
>> two-step way of getting a message to an object, but that a.method(:x)
>> isn't such a technique.
>
> "mo =3D a.method(:x)" creates a new object "mo" of class "Method", which=
=20
> contains the object "a" and a reference (or however to name this) to a=20
> method. To find the method, ":x" will be interpreted as a message "x" to=
=20
> object "a", but the corresponding method will not be executed, but refere=
nced=20
> in the new Method object.

I think we're talking past each other.

> When writing "mo.call" the object "a" will be enforced to use the method=
=20
> referenced by "mo" without any method lookup. This means, that the actual=
=20
> state of object "a" will be used to call a method, which may be overwritt=
en=20
> in the meantime.
>
> The name "receiver" for a method of class "Method", which returns the obj=
ect=20
> for which "method" was called makes some sense, because in the moment=20
> "method" was called, the referenced method inside the "Method" object wou=
ld=20
> be executed by the object when receiving the message named by the paramet=
er=20
> for the "method" method.

That's all correct, but the word "receiver" doesn't communicate it to
me.  Given this:

   m =3D a.method(:x)

I do not consider it optimal to describe a as m's "receiver".  It's a
re-definition of the term, and I think it would lead to confusion.

That doesn't mean that there's no relationship between m and a.  It
just means that the word "receiver" isn't the right word to describe
that relationship.  I'd rather see:

   m.target
   m.bound_object

etc. -- something other than m.receiver.


David

--=20
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)
---2049402039-198629628-1169399012=:4065--
---2049402039-198629628-1169399012=:4065--