From: Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>
Date: 2009-02-05T00:29:00+09:00
Subject: Re: Method.new - why not?

Hi,

In message "Re: Method.new - why not?"
    on Wed, 4 Feb 2009 15:20:21 +0900, Daniel Berger <djberg96@gmail.com> writes:

|Just a random thought that I think was inspired by several people on
|the list asking about getting the name of the method from within the
|method - why don't we have Method.new? In other words, what if this:
|
|def foo(x, y=1)
|end
|
|Was the equivalent of this?
|
|x = Method.new(:name => 'foo', :parameters => ['x', 'y'], :defaults =>
|{'y' => 1})
|Object.include(x) # or bind(x) or something

|Or is this totally stupid?

I don't think the idea itself is stupid at all, but I am afraid that
it doesn't go quite well with Ruby's Lisp-2 semantics.  That idea
would shine better in Lisp-1-ish languages like Scheme or Python.

							matz.