[#407] New feature for Ruby? — Clemens.Hintze@...

Hi all,

27 messages 1999/07/01
[#413] Re: New feature for Ruby? — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 1999/07/01

Hi Clemens,

[#416] Re: New feature for Ruby? — Clemens Hintze <c.hintze@...> 1999/07/01

On Thu, 01 Jul 1999, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#418] Re: New feature for Ruby? — gotoken@... (GOTO Kentaro) 1999/07/01

Hi

[#426] Re: New feature for Ruby? — gotoken@... (GOTO Kentaro) 1999/07/02

Hi,

[#440] Now another totally different ;-) — Clemens Hintze <c.hintze@...>

Hi,

21 messages 1999/07/09
[#441] Re: Now another totally different ;-) — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 1999/07/09

Hi,

[#442] Re: Now another totally different ;-) — Clemens Hintze <c.hintze@...> 1999/07/09

On Fri, 09 Jul 1999, you wrote:

[#443] — Michael Hohn <hohn@...>

Hello,

26 messages 1999/07/09
[#444] interactive ruby, debugger — gotoken@... (GOTO Kentaro) 1999/07/09

Hi Michael,

[ruby-talk:00486] Re: coderefs

From: Michael Hohn <hohn@...>
Date: 1999-07-14 05:55:17 UTC
List: ruby-talk #486
Hello,
I was wondering why a proc has to be called via
>> ...
>> 
>>   method = obj.method(:method_name)
>>   mathod.call(args)
>> 
>> ...

as opposed to using the parentheses; something like

   f = obj.method(:method_name)
   f(args)

would be far cleaner.  Does the syntax f() have a fixed, predefined meaning?  

cheers,
Michael

In This Thread