From: "John W. Long" <ng@...>
Date: 2005-02-11T23:27:58+09:00
Subject: Re: Building a Better Functor

Trans wrote:
>>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.

And a functor, by definition only handles one method? Which is why what 
I have written is not a functor?

--
John