Greg Buchholz wrote:
> Jim Weirich wrote:
> > Heh!  Well, almost.  I like to say that everything you can bind to a
> > variable is an object.  The problem is that you are playing games with
> > syntax.  You are trying to represent the operator of an expression with
> > an expression.  Since the operator itself is not a full expression, you
> > can't jam an expression in that place.
>
> OK.  I'm trying to get aquinted with the terminology.  Would we say
> that operators, methods, and messages aren't first class entities?
> They're second class citizens, like functions in C (you can't create
> new functions in C at runtime, but you can do quite a bit with function
> pointers).  Does that sound about right?
>
I really like this explanation:

http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/179372