Timothy (>), Larry (>]), Timothy (>>), Carl (>>>), Timothy (>>>>):
>>>>        I'm guessing that .^methods should really return a bunch of
>>>> Method
>>>> objects.
>>> No, MethodDescriptor objects. See S12:1987.
>>        Hmm.  I don't like it :).  You may be right, but I was assuming
>> that we were returning *Method* objects.
>        I asked $Larry about this on IRC; specifically I asked whether we
> were talking about a MethodDescriptor object or an Array of Method.  His
> answer:
>] that's one of the things I was gonna let the implementors flesh out
>] feel free to speculate and label it so :)
>] just keep it as simple as possible, but no simpler...
>        In light of this, I'd argue that we should do it as an Array of
> Method, until we have a reason to think otherwise.  I'm expecting, of
> course, that if the implementors think this is a bad idea, they'll chime in
> and say so :).
>        Furthermore, I'd argue that if the specs don't name a particular
> object type (ie. "method descriptor" isn't, "MethodDescriptor" would be)
> then we're free to try to figure it out ourselves.

It seems that it simply comes down to naming, then. A Method object is
a method descriptor object.

General question: could I use the Method object to invoke the method
as well? Or is it just to describe a method?

// Carl

Reply via email to