From: "matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto)" <matz@...>
Date: 2012-11-13T21:15:20+09:00
Subject: [ruby-core:49301] [ruby-trunk - Feature #7346] object(...) as syntax sugar for object.call(...)


Issue #7346 has been updated by matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto).


We easily forget conflict between method names and variable names, in a language like Ruby, where methods and variables have separated name space.

We expect p(15) to print 15 even when we have a variable named p in the scope.

Matz.


----------------------------------------
Feature #7346: object(...) as syntax sugar for object.call(...)
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/7346#change-32859

Author: rosenfeld (Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas)
Status: Rejected
Priority: Normal
Assignee: matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
Category: core
Target version: Next Major


I propose for the parser to interpret "object(...)" as "object.call(...)". It should raise NoMethodError at runtime if object doesn't respond to "call".

This would read better than using "call":

double = -> n { n * 2 }

double(3) == 6

Sorry if this has already been proposed before (and rejected) but I couldn't find any references to something like this using Redmine's search interface.


-- 
http://bugs.ruby-lang.org/