On Jul 25, 2005, at 7:48 PM, Devin Mullins wrote:
> I have a stricter definition. Let's call it "patrician  
> hooberglobbers." Patrician hooberglobbers, to me, have the  
> additional quality that the syntax for manipulating a hooberglobber  
> is the same whether it is referred to statically or by evaluation/ 
> substitution (as through a variable, or return value of a function  
> call). In this sense, Ruby has patrician classes:


What do you call patrician hooberglobbers that can be invoked with  
binding to instances of arbitrary classes, such that 'self' and  
instance variables refer to the supplied instance?

That's what I think of when I think of first-class functions, given  
my JS background: a single function that may be anonymous, assigned  
to a variable, and invoked with a specific binding. (And if it's also  
a closure, so much the better.)

There are few things that make me cry about Ruby, but of those that  
do, few make me cry more than the current situation with Methods/ 
UnboundMethods/Procs/blocks/lambdas. It's workable, but it really  
isn't elegant. (IMO)