From: Laurent Sansonetti <laurent.sansonetti@...>
Date: 2008-02-29T08:04:38+09:00
Subject: Re: [ANN] MacRuby

On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 1:51 PM, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>  In message "Re: [ANN] MacRuby"
>
>     on Fri, 29 Feb 2008 05:56:41 +0900, "Laurent Sansonetti" <laurent.sansonetti@gmail.com> writes:
>
>  |>     duck.foo(1, bar: 2)      #  mapped to foo:bar: what does an
>  |>  instance of C do with this?
>  |
>  |Here, MacRuby will check if duck responds to foo:bar:. If true, this
>  |message is sent with 1 and 2 as arguments. If not true, the foo
>  |message is sent instead with 1 and {:bar => 2} as arguments.
>  |
>  |If you're working with pure Ruby objects, the second code path should
>  |always be taken. Unless you define foo:bar: in your Ruby class.
>  |
>  |Note that the key:value syntax to describe a hash pair is available in
>  |vanilla 1.9.
>
>  I still think having dedicated syntax for Objective-C call is better
>  than overriding normal call.
>
>
>   duck.foo: 1 bar: 2
>
>  or
>
>
>   duck.foo: 1, bar: 2
>
>  maybe?  I am not sure if the parser allows this or not yet.
>

I have been thinking about this too, but I personally believe that it
doesn't reveal very pretty when messaging Objective-C methods with
only one argument.

  duck.foo: 1

But maybe we will switch to it soon, because it's more consistent with
Objective-C (no potential ambiguities). But it doesn't feel very Ruby.

Laurent