Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In message "Re: Why the lack of mixing-in support for Class methods?"
>     on Fri, 16 Jun 2006 01:16:08 +0900, transfire / gmail.com writes:
>
> |> #send must of course be replaced with #funcall in 1.9 -- has there been
> |> any progress with the naming of that? I checked the archives, but
> |> couldn't find anything never than August '05... it sounds like a "fun
> |> call", if you know what I mean... hopefully you don't.
>
> I don't.  Luckily or not.  For your information, 'funcall' is a lisp
> function name that has its own history.
>
> |Isn't #funcall now called #instance_exec?
>
> No, they are different.

I see. I wouldn't otherwise have a problem with the name 'funcall' but
it's a meta-programming method and as such it's something important to
always have available. I have BasicObject class (basically the same as
BlankSlate) which clears out the Kernel methods. But some methods are
too important to remove. Thankfully all the important ones (except #dup
and #clone) start with either '__' or 'instance_' (eg. __send__). But
#funcall will add another exception. It would be nicer to see a
consistant pattern in the naming of these meta-methods.

T.