From: Wilson Bilkovich <wilsonb@...>
Date: 2005-10-17T03:35:27+09:00
Subject: Re: Anonymous methods, blocks etc. (Cont. 'default block params')

I agree. It seems to me that once Ruby has 'real deal' anonymous
methods, then that's a primitive that could be used to implement the
other constructs, like Proc.

Also, I've been trying not to comment on the arrow thing, but my
biggest complaint is this:
In functional notation, an 'f arrow x' means apply the f function to
the x argument.   The example Ruby syntax is reversing that, and using
the arrow for specifying a function, rather than using it.

--Wilson.

On 10/16/05, robertj <robert_kuzelj@yahoo.com> wrote:
> hi,
>
> are there any non obvious issue why blocks, anonymous methods and
> methods could or should not be unified?
>
> i find it very ugly that i have to call a proc like this
> aproc.call or aproc[] instead of aproc(). unification of all those
> constructs would be really great.
>
> btw will be possible to get a handle on a instance method in ruby
> 1.9/2.0
>
> something like this:
> aproc = &anInstance.method
>
> and then of course
> aproc()
>
> ciao robertj
>
>
>