On 8/8/07, James Edward Gray II <james / grayproductions.net> wrote:
> 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
>
Wow now things make sense again, thanks for your clear and brave
words. I guess that even Tom will appreciate them, but he'd rather say
that himself.

Ok I did just not share that POV, I feel that Tom is a dreamer,
dreaming out loudly, for me the signal/noise ration was good but I am
a dreamer too ;).

Please note that he gave in very fast, I really think he did no
lobbying. But I understand now why you(plural form) are annoyed with
this post.

May I make a suggestion, let us be a little more liberal about
expressing wishes and visions on this list and OTH post to ruby-core
when we are serious, than of course on ruby-core this discussion would
have been annoying,
While on this list people not interested could have ignored it without
being afraid that something is going to change the language.
Well with being less afraid at least;)

Just a thought of course.

Robert

-- 
[...] as simple as possible, but no simpler.
-- Attributed to Albert Einstein