Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In message "Re: Symbol#to_proc is just so beautiful"
>     on Sun, 2 Jul 2006 00:34:22 +0900, transfire / gmail.com writes:
>
> |And actually if you look at it less abstract terms it doesn't seem
> |quite as radical either:
> |
> |  [1,2,3].collect.to_s
>
> This means 'print([1,2,3].collect)' would not work, since it calls
> to_s for string conversion, but to_s gives it an array of strings.

Why should it? If the block is manditory then it won't work anyway.
This is what I was saying about this notation needing a way to specify
manditory blocks in order to work. It cannot apply to optional blocks.
(Which reminds me I got bit by optional blocks yesterday when I forgt
to put .each :/)

> In any case, I feel like it requires special notation (for partial
> evaluation), even if we really need it.

Well, "need" is pretty relative. It's more a question of want I think.
How much do we want a consice notation like this? After all a special
notation might ruin it's readiabilty, which is it's main advantage.

Anyhow, it's certainly not pressing. But I have a hunch the idiom will
gain more acceptance over time.

Thanks,
T.