From: ES <ruby-ml@...>
Date: 2005-05-20T01:24:29+09:00
Subject: Re: syntax sugar: treating an object like a method

Austin Ziegler wrote:
> 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.

First-order method meaning here that methods are just a special
case of a block that has been bound to a particular object. They
would be fully rebindable, copyable and assignable. Essentially,
in a way, simply method dicts.

> 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.

What Ruby does is perfectly fine. True first-order would yield some
more flexibility.

> -austin

E


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