From: ES <ruby-ml@...>
Date: 2005-05-19T04:07:57+09:00
Subject: Re: syntax sugar: treating an object like a method


Le 18/5/2005, "Austin Ziegler" <halostatue@gmail.com> a �crit:
>On 5/18/05, Eric Mahurin <eric_mahurin@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I'm thinking of yet another RCR and would like to see if
>> anybody likes it.  I think this would be a sweet feature.  Here
>> are the basic components:
>
>Please don't. This would be awful. Ruby doesn't need a () operator.

Oh, never say never. I still fantasize about first-order functions/
methods (although that need would probably be better served by other
means). For this particular purpose I would tend to agree, though.

>-austin

E

--
template<typename duck>
void quack(duck& d) { d.quack(); }