From: dblack@...
Date: 2007-01-23T09:14:28+09:00
Subject: Re: Minor Change Proposal for Classes 'Object' and 'Method'

Hi --

On Mon, 22 Jan 2007, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

> Hi,
>
> In message "Re: Minor Change Proposal for Classes 'Object' and 'Method'"
>    on Mon, 22 Jan 2007 20:30:38 +0900, dblack@wobblini.net writes:
>
> |I've always found it very helpful (for myself and others) to keep the
> |whole sequence very visible (message sending, method lookup, method
> |execution), and I think that using "receiver" as an attribute of a
> |method object does a short-circuit in the terminology that makes it
> |harder to explain and understand.
>
> Hmm, OK, what terminology do you use for "this" (or self) in languages
> without message passing model (e.g. C++ or Java)?  That should be the
> appropriate term for it.  I use "receiver" for them too, since I have
> strong Smalltalk influence.

I don't know, in terms of the other languages.  I don't think it's
exactly analogous, though.  It's really a bound object, so
bound_object would probably be the most straightforward.

I've also started thinking about the idea of a MethodData class... but
it's pretty unformulated.


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)