------art_2334_22584130.1140650102513
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Second! I've disliked 'funcall' since I first saw it. And why break send? I
love send. Leave poor send alone!

On 2/22/06, George Ogata <g_ogata / optushome.com.au> wrote:
>
> dblack / wobblini.net writes:
>
> > I'm still not happy about #funcall.  How is one supposed to remember
> > which (#send or #funcall) is which?  There are a few things in Ruby
> > where "you just have to memorize it" -- like the true/false arguments
> > to #instance_methods, or the differences between Proc.new and lambda.
> > I've always felt that these are soft spots in the language.
> > #send/#funcall seems to me to be in the same category.
> >
>
> #funcall breaks the rules.  That makes it "fun".  ;-)
>
> > Also, are methods now also called functions?  That would be a pretty
> > huge change in terminology.
>
> I agree.  I suspect it was named after `rb_funcall', though.
>
> FWIW, I'm not a fan of the new #send/#funcall thing either, but more
> because it simply breaks too much.  Even if it's slated as a 2.0
> release.  rubygems and instiki are two things I've tried recently.
>
> Instead of renaming #send to #funcall and reimplementing #send in a
> crippled way, wouldn't it be better to leave #send alone, and just add
> a new method that respects the method's protectedness/privateness?
>
> No, I don't have a name for it.
>
>

------art_2334_22584130.1140650102513--