From: Luke Ivers <technodolt@...>
Date: 2007-01-24T02:17:33+09:00
Subject: Re: Minor Change Proposal for Classes 'Object' and 'Method'

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 02:10:08 +0900
"Phrogz" <gavin@refinery.com> wrote:

> 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?).
> 
> 
To me (whom no one knows, or probably cares about), calling it target would imply that it could be changed... calling it receiver correctly implies the context of immutability.

-- 
Luke Ivers <technodolt@gmail.com>