[ruby-talk:03545] Re: function objects?

First off, I appreciate the quick reply, both from you and matz.

Dave Thomas writes:

>> As a concrete example, what would I do if I wanted a numeric
>> integration function, like
>> 
>> integrate(f, x_min, x_max) -> the integral of f(x)
>> 
>> and, say, I wanted to pass it a method of a class as the function to
>> integrate?

>     integrate(obj.method(:function), x_min, x_max)

This could also be done as

   integrate(lambda{|x| obj.function(x)}, x_min, x_max)

right?

> Hope this makes sense.

It does, I think.  Would both of these have the same interface?  By
that, I mean, would the same definition of integrate work for both the
bound method and the lambda expression?

Also, why require "obj.method(:function)" rather than having
"obj.method" itself return a bound method object, as is the case in
Python?  Is there something in the Ruby grammar that would make it
awkward, is it a consequence of making everything an object that I
don't see yet, or is it something else entirely?

Curiously,

--Johann

-- 
Johann Hibschman                           [e-mail]