[#927] UnboundMethod#to_proc — Dave Thomas <dave@...>
I'm wondering what I can do with a Proc generated by
17 messages
2003/04/06
[#929] Re: UnboundMethod#to_proc
— "Chris Pine" <nemo@...>
2003/04/06
----- Original Message -----
[#934] Re: UnboundMethod#to_proc
— Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...>
2003/04/06
[#940] Re: UnboundMethod#to_proc
— chr_news@...
2003/04/07
>
[#941] Re: UnboundMethod#to_proc
— Dave Thomas <dave@...>
2003/04/07
>> If they have diverging interfaces such that the contracts conflict
[#936] docs on implementation of ruby and/or ruby-gc ? — Ruben Vandeginste <Ruben.Vandeginste@...>
4 messages
2003/04/07
[#964] Range in logical context — Dave Thomas <dave@...>
If I run
7 messages
2003/04/16
[#965] Re: Range in logical context
— Mauricio Fern疣dez <batsman.geo@...>
2003/04/16
On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 06:10:40AM +0900, Dave Thomas wrote:
[#973] problem with rb_rescue2() ? — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...>
5 messages
2003/04/19
Re: UnboundMethod#to_proc
From:
matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
Date:
2003-04-06 14:32:12 UTC
List:
ruby-core #930
Hi,
In message "Re: UnboundMethod#to_proc"
on 03/04/06, "Chris Pine" <nemo@hellotree.com> writes:
|----- Original Message -----
|so, bind UnboundMethod first, then call to_proc.
|----------------------------
|
|Then does it make any sense for UnboundMethod#to_proc to be defined?
Orthogonality, I may say. There's no strong reason behind it, just a
matter of place to put unbound check. Besides, to tell the truth,
Dave's question made me feel just like you, so that I will add a check
in UnboundMethod#to_proc.
matz.