From: Johann Hibschman <johann@...>
Date: 2000-06-20T10:10:09-07:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:03564] Re: function objects?

Yukihiro Matsumoto writes:

> |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?

> Because I choose `obj.method' as alias of `obj.method()'.

Ah, thanks.  That makes sense.

> Methods without argument is much frequently used than retrieving
> method object.  In addition, it allows much room for method
> optimization, which is very important for performance of an
> object-oriented language.

I'm afraid I don't understand how this would affect things.  But
that's another story.  I have to play with Ruby a bit more before I
start trying to understand how its design choices affect optimization.

Cheers,

--Johann

-- 
Johann Hibschman                           johann@physics.berkeley.edu