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