From: Trans <transfire@...>
Date: 2005-02-11T22:55:01+09:00
Subject: Re: Building a Better Functor

> Interesting. So how exactly would you define a functor?
> What you have shown above seems to be an object that
> knows how to do some kind of operation using a
> user-defined method. Is this how you would define a functor?

A good question. By standard definition, Method objects and Proc
objects are Functors. Since Ruby already has these I'm simply defining
a Functor as a "MetaMethod" for the sake of a distinction. By this I
mean an object the represents a method which can act on another method.
Function composition, represented as a 1st class object, for instance,
would also be a Functor of this sort.


T.