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.