From: "David A. Black" <dblack@...>
Date: 2005-03-21T07:22:31+09:00
Subject: Re: Paul Graham recommends Ruby

Hi --

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, Martin DeMello wrote:

> David A. Black <dblack@wobblini.net> wrote:
>>
>> Actually there's a kind of double reasoning process involved here.
>> x[] is a method designed *not* to look like a method -- but it *is* a
>> method, can be redefined, etc.  Therefore, () attached to a variable,
>> while also not looking like a method, looks like it should be one of
>> those things that don't look like methods but actually are.  So it's
>> really within the framework of this kind of Ruby idiom that what I'm
>> saying applies.
>
> If () ever gets to the stage where it works on literals as well as
> variables,

It doesn't work on either right now, though, just on method
identifiers.

> having the syntax be () and the method be #call will be
> precisely analogous to the syntax for...in calling the method #each. So
> at least there's some sort of precedent, and () looks far more rubyish
> than for...in does.

I admit that for...in analogies don't do a whole lot for me -- it's
not my favorite :-)  But I don't think the case is exactly the same.
It's not so much the call/() thing as the method/lambda thing that I
find incongruous -- that is, putting () after a variable that refers
to a lambda and have the variable sort of morph into the equivalent of
a method name.  Or something like that.


David

-- 
David A. Black
dblack@wobblini.net