From: Simen Edvardsen <toalett@...>
Date: 2006-06-02T19:33:46+09:00
Subject: Re: object::foo syntax -- get a Method object?

On 6/2/06, Dave Burt <dave@burt.id.au> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> At the moment, "obj::foo" means the same as "obj.foo"; that is,
> "obj.send(:foo)".
>
They're not the same:

$ irb
irb(main):001:0> class Test
irb(main):002:1>   class InnerTest
irb(main):003:2>   end
irb(main):004:1> end
=> nil
irb(main):005:0> Test.InnerTest
NoMethodError: undefined method `InnerTest' for Test:Class
        from (irb):5
        from :0
irb(main):006:0> Test::InnerTest
=> Test::InnerTest
irb(main):007:0>

> I propose that it be changed to mean "obj.method(:foo)" instead.
>
> Although the obj.foo syntax is generally preferred, the obj::foo syntax
> is commonly used for class methods in the standard library, so I assume
> such a change is too incompatible for use in the 1.8 branch.
>
> This would provide simpler access to method objects in case you want to
> use them functionally, pass them around as blocks, etc. It would mean
> that (as in Python, C++ and other languages) it's as easy to refer to a
> method object as to call the method, whereas currently that requires a
> wordy method call.
>
method (six characters) is not wordy at all. Method objects are
convenient, but I don't think that justifies special syntax.

> We don't need two such similar ways to call a method - the dot is fine.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Cheers,
> Dave
>
>
I say leave it as it is.

-- 
- Simen