> Not that I know the internals of the language well enough to debate the
> internal representation of a method, everything I've read suggests that,
> at a conceptual level, they can be regarded as such.  > would we reconcile this description from the Method class link?
> (http://ruby-doc.org/core/classes/Method.html)
>
> meth == other_meth => true or false
> "Two method objects are equal if that are bound to the same object and
> contain the same body"
>
> Couldn't methods be considered specialized proc objects bound to a
> particular instantiation of an object?

A Method object (= an instance of the Method class) is an object.  But
it is not a method.  It can be considered as a wrapper of the method
which is bound to an object.

We should think that a Method object is a thing that is different from
a method.

Please see also:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2602340/methods-in-ruby-objects-or-not

---
 Methods are a fundamental part of Ruby's syntax, but they are not
values that Ruby programs can operate on.  That is, Ruby's methods are
not objects in the way that strings, numbers, and arrays are.  It is
possible, however, to obtain a Method object that represents a given
method, and we can invoke methods indirectly through Method objects.
--- From "The Ruby Programming Language" [
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0596516177/ ]

-- 
NOBUOKA Yuya