Hi --

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007, ara.t.howard / noaa.gov wrote:

> very good points.  frankly, i find the 'potentiality' arguments silly since
> they're analogous to saying the we shouldn't use 'self' here
>
>  class C
>    def m() self end
>  end
>
> since, at the time of writing the function, no 'self' yet exists.  to be
> accurte we should probably use
>
>  class C
>    def m() furture_self end
>  end
>
> but, of course, we don't.

I've come to think that:

   m = a.method(:x)
   m.call

does not involve a receiving the message "x", in any useful sense of
the term "receiving".  So I don't think it's just a matter of avoiding
"future" in a case where something will happen in the future; rather,
it's a different scenario from a.x.  It's avoiding "receiver" in a
case where the object in question is not the receiver of the message
in question.

But I'm in a tiny minority on every phase and nuance of this, so
that's probably that :-)


David

-- 
Q. What is THE Ruby book for Rails developers?
A. RUBY FOR RAILS by David A. Black (http://www.manning.com/black)
    (See what readers are saying!  http://www.rubypal.com/r4rrevs.pdf)
Q. Where can I get Ruby/Rails on-site training, consulting, coaching?
A. Ruby Power and Light, LLC (http://www.rubypal.com)