From: dblack@...
Date: 2007-01-23T23:03:13+09:00
Subject: Re: Minor Change Proposal for Classes 'Object' and 'Method'

Hi --

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 20:54:51 +0900, dblack@wobblini.net writes:
>
> |I think it's that I see this:
> |
> |   a.x
> |
> |and this:
> |
> |   m = a.method(:x)
> |   m.call
> |
> |as two different ways to achieve the goal of executing x with a as
> |self.  In the first, a receives the message "x".  In the second -- as
> |I see it -- a does not receive the message "x"; it's a different path,
> |a non-message-receiving path, to the same goal.
>
> Perhaps the message was sent to the object a for both cases.  In the
> former case, the message was interpreted as a command.  In the latter
> case, the message was a method selector.

That's a much more general idea of "receiver" than I'm used to.  I
guess we could say that objects (or methods?) are "receivers" of their
arguments, so that here:

   3 + 2

3 receives the message 2.  I don't like it, though; I prefer the more
specialized meaning (3 receives the message "+" with the argument 2).


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)