From: Phrogz <phrogz@...>
Date: 2007-07-11T22:20:42+09:00
Subject: Re: Yield should be renamed call_block

On Jul 10, 4:36 pm, "ara.t.howard" <ara.t.how...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 10, 2007, at 3:33 PM, dbl...@wobblini.net wrote:
> > Vagueness would be OK, maybe, but the problem is bigger than that:
> > it's that "block.yield" just doesn't express what's happening.
>
> i'm with matz on this one
>
>    block.yield
>
> reads, to me, simple as
>
>    'doing my own thing...'
>
>    block.yield 'control to you'

Hrm; nope, I'm with David. LET THE POLARIZATION BEGIN!

When you write:
  foo.explode
you are saying:
  "Tell the 'foo' object to 'explode'."

Thus, if you write:
  blk.yield
you are saying:
  "Tell the 'blk' object to 'yield'."
...which, as David pointed out, is backwards.

When you want to say "Now yield to the block" the imperative verb has
the implicit subject of "self". The extension of this would be:
  self.yield( blk )
which of course is just:
  yield( blk )

Of course, in the current situation where there cannot be more than
one Blessed block, this can be optimized to infer the blessed block,
and we get back to the current:
  yield

blk.call is (IMHO and by the rationale above) sort of in the same
boat. You are telling the interpreter to call the block; you are not
telling the block to call itself. More sensible, IMHO,  would be:
  blk.run
  blk.execute
because those are verbs that the block should know how to do.