From: nobuyoshi nakada <nobuyoshi.nakada@...>
Date: 2005-10-27T16:47:07+09:00
Subject: Re: A comparison by example of keyword argument styles

Hi,

At Thu, 27 Oct 2005 01:58:09 +0900,
Eric Mahurin wrote in [ruby-talk:162763]:
> > > That's the ticket.  I thought &method would be the same as
> > > &(method.to_proc) - they both convert a Method to a Proc. 
> > But
> > 
> > Yes, they are equivalent.
> 
> Sorry, I thought I tried this.  I guess not.  I falsely assumed
> that define_method(:foo,&meth) and define_method(:foo,meth) did
> the same thing (they do with Proc's).  I guess not.

I meant that &foo calls foo.to_proc internally.

> Here is a full suite to show what happens with
> procs/methods/blocks/to_proc/method(:call) and define_method:
> 
> hello_world = "hello world!".method(:[])
> me = lambda { self }
> 
> Test = Class.new {
>  define_method(:hi1,&hello_world)
>  define_method(:hi2,&(hello_world.to_proc))
>  define_method(:hi3,hello_world)
>  define_method(:hi4,hello_world.to_proc)
>  define_method(:me0) { self }
>  define_method(:me1,&me)
>  define_method(:me2,&(me.to_proc))
>  define_method(:me3,&(me.method(:call).to_proc))

It is same as:
   define_method(:me3) {me.call}

Object#method encloses its context, including "self".

-- 
Nobu Nakada