From: Chris Carter <cdcarter@...>
Date: 2007-07-11T23:41:40+09:00
Subject: Re: Yield should be renamed call_block

On 7/11/07, John Joyce <dangerwillrobinsondanger@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Jul 11, 2007, at 8:50 AM, Phrogz wrote:
>
> > On Jul 11, 2:37 am, "Robert Dober" <robert.do...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 7/11/07, dbl...@wobblini.net <dbl...@wobblini.net> wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 11 Jul 2007, Chad Perrin wrote:
> >>>> Is the word "accept" being used for anything?
> >>> $ ri Proc#accept
> >>> Nothing known about Proc#accept
> >>
> >>> Doesn't look like it :-)
> >>
> >> Too bad because I could not accept accept ;)
> >> Seriously, accept what, to be run?
> >> Well if you native speakers think it is good, I will shut my mouth,
> >> but it really sounds strange to me.
> >
> > This native-English speaker concurs: "accept" is not at all a good
> > method name for a block/proc to say "please run yourself". Better I
> > think is (as I already posted) "run". :) It's both short and
> > representative.
> >
> >
> Oh! I like run!! Proc#run()
> What about do??? proc#do()
> execute
> perform
> workon
> attend
> attendto
> complete
>
>

Why are we just throwing aside the perfectly named method #call with
it's alias to #[]?  The pattern of naming methods #call for action
objects is getting more and more common, especially now that Rack uses
it.  And it really does explain what is going on.  I don't think we
need that many more alias' in Proc.  I agree that Proc#yield is wonko,
and that yield should stay in the current incarnation, but why are we
all about losing Proc#call?


-- 
Chris Carter
concentrationstudios.com
brynmawrcs.com