From: Alex Stahl <astahl@...5.com>
Date: 2010-11-11T15:55:18+09:00
Subject: Re: what's an object?

--=-InNyTt/2EUtOtXITdH2f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Not that I know the internals of the language well enough to debate the
internal representation of a method, everything I've read suggests that,
at a conceptual level, they can be regarded as such.  Otherwise, how
would we reconcile this description from the Method class link?
(http://ruby-doc.org/core/classes/Method.html)

meth == other_meth => true or false
"Two method objects are equal if that are bound to the same object and
contain the same body"

Couldn't methods be considered specialized proc objects bound to a
particular instantiation of an object?  Also, there's this description
at the link you provided:

obj.method(sym) => method
"Looks up the named method as a receiver in obj, returning a Method
object (or raising NameError). The Method object acts as a closure in
obj‘s object instance, so instance variables and the value of self
remain available."


________________________________________________________________________

Alex Stahl | Sr. Quality Engineer | hi5 Networks, Inc. | astahl@hi5.com
|

On Wed, 2010-11-10 at 22:25 -0600, Y. NOBUOKA wrote:

> > Simple answer:  everything.  Everything is considered an object,
> > including an instance of a class, the class itself, its methods, etc.
> 
> There is one thing incorrect.
> In Ruby, an instance of a class or a class itself is exactly an object,
> while a method is NOT an object.
> 
> Although we can obtain a Method object using the *Object#method*
> method [ http://ruby-doc.org/core/classes/Object.html#M000336 ], a
> method itself is not an object.
> 

--=-InNyTt/2EUtOtXITdH2f--