dblack / wobblini.net schrieb:
> That doesn't mean that there's no relationship between m and a.  It
> just means that the word "receiver" isn't the right word to describe
> that relationship.  I'd rather see:
> 
>   m.target
>   m.bound_object
> 
> etc. -- something other than m.receiver.

I see - I'm not used to use often English since a while, so these details were 
not visible for me.

It is better that native english speakers will define the names.

But now I'm really interested in the names, the methods will have in the 
implementation.

Wolfgang NáÅasi-Donner