From: Robert Dober <robert.dober@...>
Date: 2008-01-16T04:02:50+09:00
Subject: Re: Callable class with block

On Jan 15, 2008 11:15 AM, Lars <larsch@belunktum.dk> wrote:
> On Jan 14, 5:22 pm, Robert Dober <robert.do...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I am not sure I follow you
>
> I'm just trying to say that I don't think that what you suggest is
> intuitive behaviour to everyone. I personally think that it doesn't
> make sense from a syntax point-of-view. Operators and function calls
> are syntactically different things. Function calls take optional block
> arguments, operator don't. I doubt its even possible to construct an
> unambigious syntax.
Sorry but that just does not make sense to me...
>
> > when I realized that I could not go
> >   anything + 42 { 42 }
> > I was quite disappointed ...
>
> Consider
>
>     def something; 42; end
>
>     anything + something { 42 }
>
> Would the block be passed to 'something' or the '+'?
Well this is for the parser to decide, right? But
a + s &b being a.send(:+,s,&b) would make more sense as we still could
easily override this via the following

a + s(&b)
a + s(){}
a + (s {})
Robert

>
>
>



-- 
http://ruby-smalltalk.blogspot.com/

---
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
Ludwig Wittgenstein