From: Robert Dober <robert.dober@...>
Date: 2008-05-28T00:14:19+09:00
Subject: Re: OOP in Ruby?

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 4:02 PM, Huw Collingbourne <huw@darkneon.com> wrote:
> 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

> 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.
This might become very interesting, please do not take any offense but
I really cannot follow you.
Anyway, I will tell you what is important to me:
Blocks in Ruby are Proc objects, always, can you agree with this
statement, if I render to your subtle arguement about the conditions
blocks need to exist?

I feel this is more important to a nuby than comparing to Smalltalk as
you did, although it is a very interesting thing. I however feel that
the substential difference is what Rick said in his post.

Please note also Eric's patch making
{|x| x} equivalent to
lambda{|x| x}
this shows clearly that we are talking syntax here and not object semantics.

Cheers
Robert Dober
>
> best wishes
> Huw
>
> SapphireSteel Software
> Ruby and Rails In Visual Studio
> http://www.sapphiresteel.com
> --
> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
>
>



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

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