From: Phrogz <gavin@...>
Date: 2007-01-24T02:10:08+09:00
Subject: Re: Minor Change Proposal for Classes 'Object' and 'Method'

dblack@wobblini.net wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007, Pit Capitain wrote:
[snip]
> > So, I would say that after
> >
> >  m = a.method(:x)
> >
> > the object a has at least partly acted as a receiver.
> >
> > David, could you live with that? :-)
>
> If I can send people to you when they ask for an explanation of the
> double meaning :-)

FWIW, it totally makes sense to me for "m.receiver" to return the
object a in the above. Whether it's a Method instance, or a MethodData
instance, we're asking questions about the method itself...which
includes "what will happen when I call this method?". Given that, and
given that I agree with Ara's point about future references, I'm happy
to call the #probable_future_receiver just #receiver. It's the only
receiver that the method knows about at the time of asking, anyhow
(right?).