From: "trans.  (T. Onoma)" <transami@...>
Date: 2004-10-01T09:52:34+09:00
Subject: Re: ruby-dev summary 24298-24353

On Thursday 30 September 2004 08:17 pm, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In message "Re: ruby-dev summary 24298-24353"
>
>     on Fri, 1 Oct 2004 08:42:15 +0900, "trans.  (T. Onoma)" 
<transami@runbox.com> writes:
> |> > He made a point that it is helphul that a Proc object can
> |> > be handled as polymorphic.
> |> >
> |> > Matz amazed about this idea. This issue is still open.
> |
> |http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/sandbox/functor/
>
> Hmm, "fanctor".  I like the name.

Is a new class required? I think, Proc could add this feature and remain 
backward compatible.

T.