From: dblack@... Date: 2006-09-29T19:57:37+09:00 Subject: Re: New magical version of Symbol.to_proc Hi -- On Fri, 29 Sep 2006, Robert Dober wrote: > On 9/29/06, Dr Nic 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. I don't think anyone objects to method-chaining in every case. My dislike is for method chaining that, to my eye and brain, is just a way of composing a longer method name (or something that could be done by passing in arguments representing conditions) with dots. Your.mileage.may.vary :-) David -- David A. Black | dblack@wobblini.net Author of "Ruby for Rails" [1] | Ruby/Rails training & consultancy [3] DABlog (DAB's Weblog) [2] | Co-director, Ruby Central, Inc. [4] [1] http://www.manning.com/black | [3] http://www.rubypowerandlight.com [2] http://dablog.rubypal.com | [4] http://www.rubycentral.org