From: Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...>
Date: 2008-04-24T05:45:40+09:00
Subject: Re: [RCR] Drop :: as a . synonym

Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
> Eric Mahurin wrote:
>> I'd actually prefer to go the other way and  add  more value to both 
>> "::" and ".".
>>
>> a::b - gives an object named b in the scope of a
>> a.b - calls an object named b in the scope of a
>>
>> With this, you'd have these as equivalents:
>>
>> a::b <=> a.method(:b)
>> a.b <=> a::b.call
>> a.b(x, y) <=> a::b.call(x, y)
>>
>> currying could also naturally come out of this:
>>
>> a::b(x, y) <=> a.method(:b).curry(x, y)
>> a::b(x, y)[z] <=> a.method(:b).curry(x, y)[z] <=> a.b
>>
>> You could think of "a" being an object or a class in the above.  
>> What's in the scope would just be different.
> 
> That's actually not bad. It would be a.method(:b) by a long shot.

It would *beat* ...

- Charlie