On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 10:08:51PM +0900, Francis Cianfrocca wrote:
> 
> Ruby's "higher order functions": aren't you confusing the true
> functional style with the simple ability of Ruby (and many other
> imperative languages) to treat functions and closures as objects?

Minor tangential quibble:
A closure, in essence, *is an object* by definition (definition of
"object", that is).  Perhaps Jonathan Rees' menu of OOP features would
help make my point: http://mumble.net/~jar/articles/oo.html

I think what you mean is something more like "treat closures as the type
of object specified by a language's non-closure-centered object model",
which is not quite the same thing.

-- 
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Brian K. Reid: "In computer science, we stand on each other's feet."