From: Robert Dober <robert.dober@...>
Date: 2006-09-29T16:15:09+09:00
Subject: Re: New magical version of Symbol.to_proc

------=_Part_4017_25131193.1159514107117
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 9/29/06, Dr Nic <drnicwilliams@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Trans wrote:
> > But as I suggest,
> > if we see it for what it really is --an adapter, then it makes perfect
> > sense, and doesn;t seem so magical after all (except that it still
> > offers some nicely terse syntax).
>
> I agree - it is very nice syntax.
>
> Nic
>
> --
> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
>
> I'll have a look at T's link but it is a truely interesting discussion.
It is for the first time that I hear that very honorable members of the
community dislike this feature.
For me it was the most intreaging of Ruby at all (at the beginning)
I recall my old Python code

something.get_other().do_stuff().transform()

Terrible, it is only now that I realize that the concept of writing code
like this might be flawed, there are OTOH strong indications that it is not
so flawed too. E.g. lots of programing conventions asking for methods to
return objects.
Now, to complicate things even more, very often that object is "self",
personally I find the idea to return other objects, especially proxy object=
s
to self, very intriguing, the idea came to me when I looked at the BDD vide=
o
cast.

Cheers
Robert


--=20
Deux choses sont infinies : l'univers et la b=EAtise humaine ; en ce qui
concerne l'univers, je n'en ai pas acquis la certitude absolue.

- Albert Einstein

------=_Part_4017_25131193.1159514107117--