On Jan 22, 2007, at 8:04 PM, dblack / wobblini.net wrote
> On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
>> |I've also started thinking about the idea of a MethodData  
>> class... but
>> |it's pretty unformulated.
>>
>> Hmm, I am looking forward.
>
> I can give you the very basic idea (and that will save me some further
> trouble if you don't like it :-)
>
>   str = "abc"
>   md = str.method_data(:split)   => MatchData object
>
>   md.method                      => Method object
>   md.receiver                    => str
>   md.method_name                 => "split"

I don't understand why you are adding another level of indirection.
Take a look at the C code for the Method class.  A Method object
already contains pointers to lots of internal information.  I think
the original suggestion by Wolfgang really just amounted to exposing
that internal information with suitable names.

Throughout this conversation I kept getting the nagging feeling that
my mental model of the situation was in some important way different
from your mental model of the situation and so we were coming to  
different
conclusions. I can't put my finger on exactly what the difference is
but this suggestion re: MethodData just emphasizes that feeling for
me.  We are thinking about this differently--I'm just not sure I
can pin it down to exactly where our thinking diverges.

Gary Wright