From: Magnus Holm <judofyr@...>
Date: 2010-09-15T01:11:06+09:00
Subject: [ruby-core:32381] Re: Making custom_lambda() work

Of course, if you read the proposal again, you'll see that it doesn't
even mention the word "lambda". I'm talking about changing the meaning
of "foo()" where foo is a local variable. So in this example:

 a = [1,2,3]
 s = "Hello World!"
 h = { :color => :red }

 a()
 s()
 h()

That would actually run "a.call()", "s.call()" and "h.call()". There's
no special case for lambda.


// Magnus Holm



On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 17:23, Jim Weirich <jim.weirich@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sep 14, 2010, at 10:58 AM, Gary Wright wrote:
>
>> Ruby's current treatment of lambdas and procs seems very
>> self consistent to me while the various attempts to make
>> expressions that happen to evaluate to lambdas behave/look
>> like method calls feels like an ugly hack to me.
>
>
> I tend to agree with this. ��Allowing () to invoke lambdas would actually
> make it inconsistent in that this would be the *only* place in ruby where
> parenthesis invoke a method call.
>
> --
> -- Jim Weirich
> -- jim.weirich@gmail.com
>
>
>