Martin DeMello wrote:
> 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.

IIRC David doesn't like for/in either. :)  Though I do.

I have to admit his recent posts have made me see his point far
better than I did before. But I am still happy that Matz is making
the decision, not anyone else.

And, of course, I am not saying Matz is infallible. But I do say he
is smarter than I am (though he would not say so himself).


Hal