----- Original Message ----- 
From: <dblack / superlink.net>
To: "ruby-talk ML" <ruby-talk / ruby-lang.org>
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 5:51 AM
Subject: Re: block.call vs. yield


> > As a conclusion, you will have compatible behavior when you use
> > blk.yield (new method in 1.8) instead of blk.call.  Fix will be
> > available soon on the CVS.
> 
> Language comment:
> 
> 'yield' as a method name for blocks strikes me as awkward.  In the
> past I've never thought of 'yield'ing as an action performed by
> blocks, nor as something they're asked to do; it's more that they are
> executed because they get control because a 'yield' has already
> happened.

I now see what David is saying. I had failed to 
read all of the thread.

I agree, 'yield' as a method name is not ideal.
Perhaps 'invoke' -- although that is not mentally
associated with 'yield' nor is it mentally 
distant enough from 'call'.

I think those are the two real difficulties in
naming this method: 1. We want people to know
it has the semantics of yield; 2. We want them
to know it is different from call.

Hal