From: gwtmp01@...
Date: 2007-01-22T12:21:01+09:00
Subject: Re: Minor Change Proposal for Classes 'Object' and 'Method'


On Jan 21, 2007, at 8:19 PM, dblack@wobblini.net wrote:
> But what does:
>
>   m = a.method(:x)
>
> represent -- *without* making the call to the method? At that point,
> there has been no event (direct or indirect) where a has received "x".
> All we've done is create a Method object, based on a's interface.  The
> only message-receiving is a receiving "method", but not "x".

In my mind, the Method instance represent that future event.  It is
a model of a Ruby concept (which has no concise name): the final  
delivery
of a message to an object.  And at the point that the message is finally
delivered (i.e. the chuck of code is executed) isn't it reasonable to  
say
that the object has 'received' the message (:x) and so it is the  
'receiver'?
Of course my answer is 'yes' and since I view a Method instance as  
modeling that
future event, using 'receiver' as the accessor is not confusing *to me*.

Perhaps the class shouldn't be called Method but instead  
MethodInvocation or
BoundMethodInvocation (and UnboundMethodInvocation of course).  Maybe  
the
shortened versions omit too much of the context?

Gary Wright