From: Konrad Meyer <konrad@...>
Date: 2007-11-05T14:30:49+09:00
Subject: Re: def blah do |x| -- alternate method definition syntax

--nextPart3894629.T9HGC1DLsu
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Quoth Joe Holt:
> Hi all,
>=20
> This came up in a discussion about Ruby with a friend who is learning...
>=20
> Why aren't method definitions more like blocks? Perhaps it's easier to =20
> explain with some examples. Consider the method blah:
>=20
> def blah(x)
> 	...
> end
>=20
> And this proc:
>=20
> lambda do |x|
> 	...
> end
>=20
> Friend wondered why a method definition couldn't be like this:
>=20
> def blah do |x|
> 	...
> end
>=20
> And I didn't have a good answer, except that "it just is." Maybe I =20
> could have gone into the semantic difference between methods and =20
> lambda procs, but does semantic difference necessitate syntactic =20
> difference?
>=20
> I tried to simulate this like so:
>=20
> blah =3D lambda do |x|
> 	...
> end
>=20
> Which I realize is going down a different path, but still. Now I wish =20
> I could do this:
>=20
> blah(5)
>=20
> But I can't. I have to blah.call.
>=20
> I'm not complaining at all. This isn't bait. It's just me loving Ruby =20
> and wondering aloud. Any opinions?
>=20
> Joe

blah.call(5) is synonymous with blah[5], IIRC.

HTH,
=2D-=20
Konrad Meyer <konrad@tylerc.org> http://konrad.sobertillnoon.com/

--nextPart3894629.T9HGC1DLsu
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc 
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBHLqqECHB0oCiR2cwRAtLJAKCIQteF1Uga1SgewAAXExVOTjGzCgCfaAT4
GhfY5gLQWCjQaiTtmQvhxN8=
=loaC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart3894629.T9HGC1DLsu--