David A. Black <dblack / wobblini.net> wrote:
> 
> Actually there's a kind of double reasoning process involved here.
> x[] is a method designed *not* to look like a method -- but it *is* a
> method, can be redefined, etc.  Therefore, () attached to a variable,
> while also not looking like a method, looks like it should be one of
> those things that don't look like methods but actually are.  So it's
> really within the framework of this kind of Ruby idiom that what I'm
> saying applies.

If () ever gets to the stage where it works on literals as well as
variables, having the syntax be () and the method be #call will be
precisely analogous to the syntax for...in calling the method #each. So
at least there's some sort of precedent, and () looks far more rubyish
than for...in does.

martin