Is there actually any language in which these would be called common methods?
I agree with your point. It's just Perl being gratuitously different, yet again — like the ridiculous "invocant" vice the standard term "object" (or else "receiver").
Being gratuitously different is the main thing I hate so much about Python.
Perl should be better than that.
Really, stuff like this is what makes Perl look stupid. It makes it look like our best and brightest don't even know the standard terms of art.
("Invocant" is especially bad because it makes it clear that our people don't know the most basic Latin either.)
Today's latest and greatest software contains tomorrow's zero day exploits .
| [reply] |
Calling the invocant an object would be misleading though, as it's often just a string class name.
"Invocant" is being used as an English word, without necessarily the same meaning as in Latin. Consider how wildly the meaning of words like "genius" have been altered when borrowed into English. Altering the meaning is fine. I don't think many people are being confused by how the term differs from what they learnt in their Latin classes. The whole medical community is out there using words like "tonsillitis" (Latin word with a Greek suffix) and "dehydration" (Greek word with a Latin prefix and a Latin-derived suffix) and I don't think that the world perceives doctors as stupid as a result.
| [reply] |
"Invocant" is being used as an English word, without necessarily the same meaning as in Latin.
I think you've missed my point, which is that the -ant suffix (for -are verbs) refers to the doer of the verb — that is, the subject, not the object.
"Invocant" means "caller"; and referring to the object of the method as the sender of the message rather than its receiver is in direct and gross contradiction of all established OO language.
If they really felt it necessary to choose a new word, they should have done better.
| [reply] |
