unknown wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Dec 2006, Daniel Schierbeck wrote:
> 
>> I agree that `funcall' is a weird name... "call a function". What
>> function? I thought we agreed on calling them methods!
> 
> I think the idea is that calling methods without a receiver can be
> considered "functional style"; therefore, "funcall", rather than
> "send", should be understood to include private methods.

I think "funcall" is just an artifact of the rb_funcall() 
function---which invokes a method on an _explicit_ receiver---from 
Ruby's C interface.

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.