From: Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...>
Date: 2005-05-19T05:52:19+09:00
Subject: Re: syntax sugar: treating an object like a method

On 5/18/05, ES <ruby-ml@magical-cat.org> wrote:
> 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.

As I understand it, Ruby already has first-order functions; they're
just not (currently) callable with foo(). Ruby 1.9 has an
experimental change that does this for local variables that have
Methods or Procs in them.

At the very least, no one has been able to explain to me why what
Ruby does isn't acceptable. I don't want or need Ruby to be Python
and I don't want or need a () operator.

-austin
-- 
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com
               * Alternate: austin@halostatue.ca