Possibly OT, the "-er/-ee" boundary has become corrupted in recent usage. I suppose "standees" in a bus might be tolerated, depending on your view of transit riders as active or passive, but when a jail-break occurs, the former prisoners should become "escapers", not "escapees". The prison authorities are the escapees. Similarly, the attendees at a conference are the people on stage, being attended-to by the attendants sitting down below them.
</arrant pedantry> On 9/1/20, Larry Wall <la...@wall.org> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 03:12:26PM -0700, yary wrote: > : I have a quibble there. 1st & 2nd sentences disagree slightly by going > from > : active to passive voice. "Caller, the one who calls" vs "object on which > : that method is being called" > : > : Suggestion for 2nd sentence "The invocant of a method would be the object > : calling the method" ... if that is correct! > > I don't think it much matters, because Tom and I originally picked > "invocant" precisely because it was the least-marked affix available with > respect to active/passive voice, so that you could run your mental model > either way, depending on whether you think the object itself does the > method or the calling context does the method on behalf of the object. > There is no single right answer here. C++ programmers will think of it > very differently from Smalltalk programmers. > > Larry >
