Hi --

On Tue, 4 Jul 2006, ara.t.howard / noaa.gov wrote:

> On Tue, 4 Jul 2006, Mauricio Fernandez wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 04, 2006 at 12:39:12AM +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> In message "Re: About 1.9 #__method__ feature."
>>>     on Tue, 4 Jul 2006 00:31:03 +0900, dblack / wobblini.net writes:
>>> 
>>> |Speaking of send: is the 'funcall' name definite?  Are you still
>>> |interested in hearing arguments against it? :-)
>>> 
>>> Do you have a proposal for any alternatives?  By the way, have you
>>> noticed the alias "invoke_functional_method"?
>> 
>> hmmm the link between "might be called externally despite being private" 
>> and
>> "functional" is subtle, to say the least;
>> #invoke_private_method seems much clearer (even if inaccurate) and is 
>> nearly
>> as long if you want to discourage its use.
>
> how bout
>
>  invoke_method!  # dangerous because invokes even private

I suggested send! long ago, but Matz didn't like it.


David

-- 
  "To fully realize the potential of Rails, it's crucial that you take
    the time to fully understand Ruby--and with "Ruby for Rails" David
       has provided just what you need to help you achieve that goal."
       -- DAVID HEINEMEIER HANSSON, in the foreword to RUBY FOR RAILS.
   Complete foreword & sample chapters at http://www.manning.com/black!