gwtmp01 / mac.com wrote:
>
> Now you are right back to where we started.
> You don't need any special new syntax or behavior :
>
>
> def proxy(a)
>    if a.respond_to? :call
>      actual(a.call)
>    else
>      actual(a)
>    end
> end
>
> I guess you could argue that ->identifier is just syntactic sugar
> for identifier.call but it doesn't seem worth it to me--at least
> not in the same way that a[index] is useful sugar for a.[](index)

No, I think he was still working with implict execution. The -> is
PREVENTING the call.

T.