From: Daniel Berger <djberge@...>
Date: 2003-04-10T01:26:14+09:00
Subject: Re: Proc Question

Travis Whitton wrote:
> 
> As I was coding this morning, a question occured to me. Why must proc objects
> have a call method? I'm sure that there's a good reason for this, but it seems
> like it would be more natural for proc objects to behave as regular methods
> do and avoid the .call() syntax.
> 
> I.e.,
> square = proc {|n| n * n}
> square(4) # => 16
> 
> I see that [] is aliased to .call, but I find that surprising over (), which
> is the more typical way of specifying arguments to a method. Perhaps having
> a call method is a more object-oriented way of using proc objects?
> 
> Thanks,
> Travis

What if you had:

def square(n)
   puts "in the method..."
   n * n
end

square = proc{ |n| n * n }
square(4) # call method
square.call(4) # call proc object

In this case, call() would allow you to differentiate between a method
and a proc object.

Regards,

Dan

-- 
a = [74, 117, 115, 116, 32, 65, 110, 111, 116, 104, 101, 114, 32, 82]
a.push(117,98, 121, 32, 72, 97, 99, 107, 101, 114)
puts a.pack("C*")