From: Alex Gutteridge <alexg@...>
Date: 2011-01-17T20:19:55+09:00
Subject: Re: Obscure syntax error

 On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 20:02:58 +0900, Peter Hickman wrote:
> The format
>
> x ...followed by something else...
>
> means that x is a method and anything that follows it is a parameter.
> Since you don't have a method called x you get "undefined method `x'"
> just like it says in the error message.
>
> When x is a reference to a variable by itself it just returns its
> value, but when you put a parameter after it it looks for a method
> called x, because you are passing it a parameter "y" and the only
> things you pass parameters to are methods so you get the "undefined
> method `x'" message again.
>
> In the final case again you have no method called x and therefore a
> parameter, in this case the :y, is unexpected. In that you don't pass
> parameters to a variable only to methods.

 I think Rolf's point is that in *both* of those last two cases there is 
 no method called x - the only difference being that in the first case he 
 tries to pass a string to the non-existent method in the second a 
 symbol. So why is the first (correctly) throwing a NoMethodError and the 
 second gives a *syntax* error?

-- 
 Alex Gutteridge