From: "David A. Black" <dblack@...>
Date: 2009-01-12T12:59:02+09:00
Subject: Re: functional programming

Hi --

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, Mike Gold wrote:

> Joel VanderWerf wrote:
>> Perhaps I'm distracted by the specifics of mean and missing the general
>> point...
>
> 'mean' stands for anything.  I should have called it 'some_func'.  You
> can't just change its meaning.  In particular, you can't change the
> methods in the ruby standard library.  (Well, you can, but you'll be
> in danger of receiving a painful retributive wedgie from those who use
> your code.  Perhaps even an atomic one.)
>
> You can always write wrappers which convert a given method or lambda
> to a one-argument lambda expecting an array.  But this is just another
> kind of Lisp emulation in Ruby, taking non-homogeneous primitives and
> making them homogeneous.

Can you give an example of the kind of meaning-changing you mean --
that is, what you would be doing if you could do it? I'm not quite
getting it.


David

-- 
David A. Black / Ruby Power and Light, LLC
Ruby/Rails consulting & training: http://www.rubypal.com
Coming in 2009: The Well-Grounded Rubyist (http://manning.com/black2)

http://www.wishsight.com => Independent, social wishlist management!