From: Robert Dober <robert.dober@...>
Date: 2007-01-22T03:43:15+09:00
Subject: Re: Minor Change Proposal for Classes 'Object' and 'Method'

------=_Part_180697_32770925.1169404992937
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 1/21/07, Wolfgang N=E1dasi-Donner <wonado@donnerweb.de> wrote:
>
> dblack@wobblini.net schrieb:
> > 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.
>
> I see - I'm not used to use often English since a while, so these details
> were
> not visible for me.
>
> It is better that native english speakers will define the names.
>
> But now I'm really interested in the names, the methods will have in the
> implementation.


I do not want to play the wise guy, but what David said took me a very long
time to understand and yet seems so simple now.
Normally the stupid one having understood can explain much better, forgive
me for the blunt try:

A method just does not have a receiver, that is completely correct.
A message sent to a receiver may trigger a method which than is called with
the receiver.
A method bound to an object (and I will not define the name ;) of course is
a very likely receiver of a message triggering an eventual call of the boun=
d
method.

Confusing? or did I get it wrong?

Cheers
Robert


Wolfgang N=E1dasi-Donner
>
>


--=20
"The best way to predict the future is to invent it."
- Alan Kay

------=_Part_180697_32770925.1169404992937--