On Aug 8, 2007, at 10:30 AM, Robert Dober wrote:

> For me this is a discussion beyond lobbying, and I feel it is rich,
> and I feel sad that you folks point a finger and cry RCR :)

I apologize.  I should have been nicer.

You're right in that there's nothing really wrong with this  
discussion.  My personal feeling is that Trans's solution to most  
situations is to change Ruby to fit his world view.  I feel like it  
should be the other way around most of the time.

His regular change requests have led me to consider them more noise  
than signal, though I shouldn't have taken that out on this thread.   
Again, I apologize.

Getting back on topic:  I feel as I have already stated that send()  
and funcall() are on the right sides of the equation.  send() sends  
messages to an object and I feel that should be treated as a normal  
method call, ignoring the private stuff.

funcall() was selected because Matz sometimes refers to receiverless  
method calls as a "function style" syntax.  We have at least  
module_function() in the language today as another sign of this.

Like David Black, I don't care for the name and would prefer send! 
().  The bang is suppose to indicate a dangerous alternative and  
using a send()-like tool to bypass method visibility feels dangerous  
to me.  You better know what you are doing.

Regardless though, I can't build any rational for reversing them,  
beyond backwards compatibility with the current send().  While that's  
a noble goal, 1.9 is known to break compatibility when needed and if  
that leads to a better thought-out API, I'm for it.

funcall() makes zero sense on the other side of the equation, so now  
we need a name change too.  To me, that's one of the signs that this  
suggestion is on the wrong path.

That's just my opinion though.  I could be wrong and I definitely  
don't make these decisions.

James Edward Gray II