From: Ross Bamford <rossrt@...>
Date: 2006-06-02T19:53:42+09:00
Subject: Re: object::foo syntax -- get a Method object?

On Fri, 2006-06-02 at 19:25 +0900, Daniel Schierbeck wrote:
> Dave Burt wrote:
> > At the moment, "obj::foo" means the same as "obj.foo"; that is,
> > "obj.send(:foo)".
> > 
> > I propose that it be changed to mean "obj.method(:foo)" instead.
> 
> I'm just not sure that method objects are accessed frequently enough to 
> justify such a syntax. Furthermore, if we *were* to introduce a 
> shorthand syntax for accessing method objects, why not use a syntax that 
> isn't currently in use?
> 
>    obj->foo
>    obj~foo

I've been watching the related thread on the newsgroup, and I agree with
Daniel, in that I've not used #method enough to make it worthwhile
having a special syntax for it, and even if we did I think :: is
confusing enough already.

(Aside: Current ruby 1.9 has an experimental lambda syntax involving the
-> operator).

-- 
Ross Bamford - rosco@roscopeco.REMOVE.co.uk