From: Paul Jungwirth <once@9stmaryrd.com>
Date: 2009-03-20T22:06:13+09:00
Subject: Re: Passing a named function instead of a code block?

James Coglan wrote:
> See docs for Object#method:
> http://ruby-doc.org/core/classes/Object.html#M000338

Ah, so I want a line like this:

puts [1, 2, 3, 4].collect(&a.method(:use))

Actually, this helps me understand the previous solution. I guess 
method(:foo) and a.method(:foo) are actually going to the same place, 
huh? And each return a Method object, which I then cast to a block with 
&. It is all starting to make sense....

Doesn't this seem like an appropriate place for some syntactic sugar? 
I'd be nice if you could abbreviate such calls with something like:
  \:foo
  \:a.foo
Since ruby is so focused on closures, this seems like an appropriate 
place for such brevity.

Thanks again!


-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.