From: gabriele renzi <surrender_it@...>
Date: 2005-05-19T06:05:13+09:00
Subject: Re: syntax sugar: treating an object like a method

Austin Ziegler ha scritto:

>>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.

AFAIK it does work (reasonably to me) for everything that has #call.

> 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.
> 

it *is* acceptable, *I* would just prefer some syntax sugar.
I mean,
  x.foo()
is quite acceptable but I think
  x.foo
is nicer.