From: Phrogz <gavin@...>
Date: 2007-01-24T03:40:06+09:00
Subject: Re: Minor Change Proposal for Classes 'Object' and 'Method'

dblack@wobblini.net wrote:
> I've come to think that:
>
>    m = a.method(:x)
>    m.call
>
> does not involve a receiving the message "x", in any useful sense of
> the term "receiving".  So I don't think it's just a matter of avoiding
> "future" in a case where something will happen in the future; rather,
> it's a different scenario from a.x.  It's avoiding "receiver" in a
> case where the object in question is not the receiver of the message
> in question.

I love the direction and depth that this discussion has taken and
continues to take. Fascinating tying down of abstract concepts :)

David, if you don't think of it as "receiving" the message, what do you
think of it as doing instead?

In Pit's 2 step (find method associated with a message, execute the
code for that method), the word 'receive' doesn't exist, except for the
implicit "I handed you a message that you're supposed to find the
method for." So let's look at "m.call".

That's invoking the method with the 'self' set to 'a', right? Is it the
"bound_object" for the method?