On Nov 12, 2007 10:34 AM, Austin Ziegler <halostatue / gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/11/07, Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter / sun.com> wrote:
>
> > David Flanagan wrote:
> > > IIRC, the reason for a visiblity-honoring method is so that if your
> > > intent is to invoke a (public) method that is part of a published API
> > > you won't inadvertently invoke a (private) implementation-dependent
> > > helper method with the same name defined by a subclass.  You fail fast
> > > with an exception rather than getting unexpected behavior that comes
> > > from calling the wrong method.
> > I thought it might be something like that. For that purpose,
> > invoke_method seems reasonable, since it does say to me "please invoke
> > this method as though I were calling it", and I'd expect the same rules
> > to apply.
>
> Why not #call_method then?
>
> It inverts the #method().call() mechanism, and is a bit clearer,
> perhaps. (Interesting, at least in 1.8.6 #method(:bar).call will call
> a private method.)
>

method().call() sends the message call, call_method seems to call a
method without a message.
I argue that we don't need calling methods directly. Sending messages
and calling methods have the same aim, having both make us having
unnecessary operators around.

>
> -austin
> --
> Austin Ziegler * halostatue / gmail.com * http://www.halostatue.ca/
>                * austin / halostatue.ca * http://www.halostatue.ca/feed/
>                * austin / zieglers.ca
>
>