From: Dan Bernier Date: 2008-05-28T00:26:16+09:00 Subject: Re: OOP in Ruby? No one's mentioned "A Little Ruby, A Lot of Objects"! http://www.visibleworkings.com/little-ruby/ On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 11:14 AM, Robert Dober wrote: > On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 4:02 PM, Huw Collingbourne 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 > > -- For building invisible machines... http://invisibleblocks.wordpress.com