From: dblack@...
Date: 2007-03-01T11:50:46+09:00
Subject: Re: object_* and instance_* methods

Hi --

On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, Daniel DeLorme wrote:

> A while back there was a proposal to use a standard naming scheme for 
> meta-programming methods. It went like this:
>
>  object_id
>  object_class (instead of class)
>  object_send (instead of send)
>  object_method (instead of method)

Why object_method?

> Then for all the methods that bypass access restrictions:
>
>  instance_send (instead of funcall)
>  instance_eval
>  instance_exec

I wish there were a way to name these without components to the name
that you have to "just know".  I actually don't know the difference
between instance_eval and instance_exec, and I suspect I will be
looking it up frequently in the future :-)

I'm certainly in favor of not having funcall, for reasons enumerated
at length in earlier threads (q.v. if you have some spare time...).
I've lost track a bit of where that stands.

>  instance_variable_get
>  instance_variable_set
>  instance_variables
>
> The discussion didn't go much farther then but I'd like to reignite the 
> bikeshed. Personally I think it's a brilliant idea; sure the method names are 
> longer but that seems perfectly acceptable to me since meta-programming 
> should not be used that often.

I'd say it's more that they should be reasonably conspicuous.

> The naming is consistent and obvious, it 
> avoids ugliness like __send__, it reduces chances of naming conflict 
> (CgiRequest#method, Email#send), it allows a simple pattern match to 
> recognize any meta-programming methods, and it's already half implemented. 
> Are there any other people who support this idea?

I'm more interested in the individual decisions -- like avoiding
__send__ by having some relatively non-vulnerable alternative.  I'm
not big on grouping "metaprogramming" methods together, and I wouldn't
want to see decisions made collectively for them.  I think a lot of
what's great about Ruby is how hand-crafted it is, so to speak. 
But I think most of the names you've suggested sound good.  I'm not
sure about object_method, though.


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)