From: Joshua Ballanco Date: 2011-09-26T09:28:58+09:00 Subject: [ruby-core:39714] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #5364][Open] How about new syntax: "object.\method" returns a Method instance? --20cf303bf89a901e0b04adcd3e08 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Joey Zhou wrote: > > 1. It makes people happy, writing less code, and no harm to readability. > Personally, I would like to hear more on how having another operator for new Rubyists to learn does not harm readability? One of the oft-cited advantages of Ruby vs Perl is that Perl so often devolves into characters indistinguishable from line-noise. Admittedly, it does seem that certain languages are more than happy to chase down this rabbit hole (Haskell, Scala, C++, etc.), but I think Ruby is not competing for mind-share with these sorts of languages. Rather, I think Ruby could stand to learn a lot from the simplicity of a language like Lua. Furthermore, I do not think that the worst part of the obj.method(:meth_name) form is its verbosity or really any part of its syntax. Instead, what troubles me is all of the various hidden differences between a method object, a proc object, and a proc(lambda) object, and the relative uselessness of detached methods (e.g. they can only be rebound to objects of the same class; not even subclasses are valid). I would rather see these addressed before worrying about adding new syntax. --20cf303bf89a901e0b04adcd3e08 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Joey Zhou <yimutang@gmail.com<= /a>> wrote:

1. It makes people happy, writing less code, and no harm to readability= .
=C2=A0

Personally, I would like to hear mor= e on how having another operator for new Rubyists to learn does not harm re= adability? One of the oft-cited advantages of Ruby vs Perl is that Perl so = often devolves into characters indistinguishable from line-noise. Admittedl= y, it does seem that certain languages are more than happy to chase down th= is rabbit hole (Haskell, Scala, C++, etc.), but I think Ruby is not competi= ng for mind-share with these sorts of languages. Rather, I think Ruby could= stand to learn a lot from the simplicity of a language like Lua.

Furthermore, I do not think that the worst part of the = obj.method(:meth_name) form is its verbosity or really any part of its synt= ax. Instead, what troubles me is all of the various hidden differences betw= een a method object, a proc object, and a proc(lambda) object, and the rela= tive uselessness of detached methods (e.g. they can only be rebound to obje= cts of the same class; not even subclasses are valid). I would rather see t= hese addressed before worrying about adding new syntax.
--20cf303bf89a901e0b04adcd3e08--