From: Huw Collingbourne <huw@...>
Date: 2008-05-27T23:02:56+09:00
Subject: Re: OOP in Ruby?

Robert Dober wrote:
> I agree upto here, but...
>>- that is, just writing a block in code does not make it an
>> instance of a Block (or Proc) class.
> I however believe it does, if you write a block in Ruby it is always
> passed on to a method

Therein lies the difference. If you write a block in Smalltalk it has an 
independent existence. It does not demand a receiver method in order to 
justify its existence. In other words, a Smalltalk block is just the 
same as an other object. It is an instance of its class and comes with 
all the methods of its class. In fact, send it the 'class' message and 
it will reply Block (or BlockClosure or whatever a specific Smalltalk 
class library may have named it).

In Ruby, if you create a free-standing block, Ruby regards it as a 
syntax error. So, unless a Proc object is instantiated using a block, I 
don't believe that a Ruby block meets the essential criterion required 
to be described as an object.

best wishes
Huw

SapphireSteel Software
Ruby and Rails In Visual Studio
http://www.sapphiresteel.com
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.