From: David Richards <lists@...>
Date: 2013-01-22T09:09:55+09:00
Subject: Re: Enumerator usage

Robert Klemme wrote in post #1093088:

> Ruby is not a functional language so methods are not first class objects.

I've just learned that methods can be first class objects:

add_two = 2.method(:+)
add_two.class  # => Method
(1..3).map(&add_two)    # => [3,4,5]

Using this idiom, methods become first class objects.

It appears that Ruby may well facilitate many (if not all) of the 
functional idioms I'm fond of using. There may be some performance 
penalties associated with some of these idioms however.

So this whole topic area seems much more robust and arcane than is 
apparently commonly understood. It's not as simple as "Ruby is not a 
functional language" and "methods are not first class objects". It's 
obviously a bigger matter of understanding the Ruby class hierarchy and 
full syntax.

I've only been studying Ruby for three days and I'm still obviously 
struggling with the basics. But at least now I see that Ruby has some 
'hidden' potential.

_ Dave

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