"David A. Black" <dblack / wobblini.net> writes:

>>> My problem with that is that the point of __send__ is to keep the name
>>> send available for user-defined methods (the same logic that has led
>>> to the freeing up of "id" through the creation of object_id).
>>>
>>> I think adding special significance to the __'s is too much of an
>>> afterthought, and also would reintroduce the same problem for people
>>> who want to write methods called "send".
>>
>> No, not really... if you want others to allow reusing "send", you can
>> still call __fcall__ (no private).
>
> I'm afraid I'm losing track.  __fcall__ would be the same as send, and
> __send__ the same as fcall?  I think I must be getting it wrong.... :-)
>
> I think that in every case throughout the language, if both abc and
> __abc__ exist, they should be synonymous.

Ok, then we disagree. :-)

I wanted #send to be the same as #__fcall__ and #__send__ not to
respect privateness (the __ is the dangerous sign for that method).

>> Assuming the #send (no private)/#send! (everything) approach was
>> accepted, this could get very confusing.
>
> I'm not sure why (one method does one thing; another does another; it
> seems very simple), but it's a moot point as Matz doesn't like it.

It is interesting you want #abc and #__abc__ to do the same, but don't
care if #send sends a mail and #send! a message...

> David
-- 
Christian Neukirchen  <chneukirchen / gmail.com>  http://chneukirchen.org