From: Chad Perrin <code@...>
Date: 2010-11-14T08:03:07+09:00
Subject: Re: what's an object?

--ew6BAiZeqk4r7MaW
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 03:23:13PM +0900, Josh Cheek wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 10:35 PM, Chad Perrin <code@apotheon.net> wrote:
>=20
> >
> > Why should you be able to do puts(3), if you think we should not be able
> > to do foo(3)?
> >
> >
> Because puts(3) is shorthand for "send the object 'Kernel' the message
> 'puts' with the parameter '3'" but foo(3) is shorthand for "send the obje=
ct
> 'foo' no message at all with the argument 3" That doesn't work because it=
 is
> not consistent with Ruby's object model.
>=20
> In other words, the difference is this:
>=20
> Kernel.send "puts" , 3
> foo.send "" , 3

The claim was that foo is just the "object" puts, though, which means
that should actually look like this:

    Kernel.send "puts" , 3
    Kernel.send "foo" , 3

=2E . . if the method and the object are the same thing.  The fact they
don't work that way just shows that they method and the object are *not*
the same thing -- that the method puts is *not* an object as claimed.


>=20
> They may look the same the way you formatted their syntax, but they are
> completely different.

The fact they are completely different is my point.  One is an object.
The other is a method.  Ne'er the twain shall meet.


>=20
> Putting (3) after puts is not what invoked it. Sending it to the object
> Kernel is what invoked it. Likewise, putting (3) after foo will not invoke
> foo, rather, sending call to the object foo will invoke it. I can't think=
 of
> any way to reconcile such a belief with anything anywhere in Ruby, and yo=
ur
> puts example only appears to be an exception because you formatted it
> deceptively.

I don't even know what you're trying to say here that disagrees with
anything I was saying.  My question was rhetorical, because I already
knew (and was making the point) that foo (the object) and puts (the
method) are not the same thing.


>=20
> From your table, its not that puts.call(3) and foo(3) fail to work, its t=
hat
> they don't even make sense. puts is invoked, it returns a value. You aren=
't
> sending call to puts, you are sending it to nil, the object that puts
> returns. You are just using tricks of syntax to be ambiguous. Make
> it Kernel.puts().call(3) and it is explicit. Make it self.foo(3) and it is
> explicit, it is a message to self, not to foo.

Of course, they don't make sense.  That's my point.  One is a method, the
other an object.  If the method *was* an object, you'd be able to send it
messages to invoke methods.  You can't -- as you pointed out.  Thank you
for making my point for me.

--=20
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]

--ew6BAiZeqk4r7MaW
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (FreeBSD)

iEYEARECAAYFAkzfF7EACgkQ9mn/Pj01uKVqaQCffnF531scYtrNLmtxR1NJmuHb
FcAAnRBU6lKjmZgXAPpSxpNQoMU95s0R
=QsYY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--ew6BAiZeqk4r7MaW--