From: Robert Dober Date: 2007-01-23T20:57:33+09:00 Subject: Re: Minor Change Proposal for Classes 'Object' and 'Method' ------=_Part_221308_11734943.1169553444776 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On 1/23/07, ara.t.howard@noaa.gov wrote: > > On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > In message "Re: Minor Change Proposal for Classes 'Object' and 'Method'" > > on Tue, 23 Jan 2007 09:14:28 +0900, dblack@wobblini.net writes: > > > > |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. > > > > The term 'bound_object' is not suitable for the Method object model in > > my brain. I want to retrieve the object corresponding to self in that > > method. Among your suggestions, "target" is better than bound_object. > > But I still fond of 'receiver'. > > 'receiver' makes perfect sense to me. so does 'this'. it does not make sense to me, it is only a potential receiver at the time being, the receiver in a Bound Method object is just not a meaningful term. In order to receive a message a message must be sent. I have followed David's crusade ;) very carefully and it makes lots of sense to me to distinguish between what is and what might be. Now I suspect there are just different conceptions at work, as you are all very clever guys (so am I but I hide it on the list). Maybe this is a critical question: Do we all agree that a receiver is an entity receiving a message and nothing else? Maybe not. Cheers Robert regards. > > -a > -- > we can deny everything, except that we have the possibility of being > better. > simply reflect on that. > - the dalai lama > > -- "The best way to predict the future is to invent it." - Alan Kay ------=_Part_221308_11734943.1169553444776--