dblack / wobblini.net wrote:
> Hi --
>
> 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'm not sure I find it very convincing.  I think of the no-receiver
> thing as a way of un-cluttering the code a bit, not a departure from
> object orientation.  After all, there *is* a receiver, and it is
> receiving a message.
>
> Also, funcall itself does involve a receiver.  So the situation is
> that you see this:
>
>    obj.funcall(:meth)
>
> and you infer that it includes private methods because *if* you were
> calling meth as a private method, there would be no receiver.  To me
> that involves too much "What if?"


Hmm... Are you perhpas indirectly suggesting:

  send(:meth)  # private
  self.send(:meth)  # public

?

T.