> . . . except that in Lisps the () is list syntax, and the reason
> closures and methods share that syntax is that everything is a list.
> That's my understanding, anyway.  Then again, I'm no Lisp expert.
>
> On the other hand, Perl might be a good example of unified syntax for
> methods and closures.  In both cases, calling the thing involves a
> dereferencing, for which ->() is the syntax.

True, I was thinking of invocation and typed () where that doesn't  
apply to Lisp.  The point was that in some languages invocation is  
accomplished in the same way since the two forms of definition are  
semantically equivalent.  If I remember correctly (it has been quite  
a while since I've looked at Lisp and Scheme) this is actually a  
difference between Scheme and Lisp.  Scheme has a single namespace  
for variable definitions and function definitions whereas in Common  
Lisp the two are separate.  I actually much prefer the Scheme  
approach and consider it to be more beautiful and simple.  The  
biggest barrier to something like this in Ruby (at least in 1.8.x) is  
that the parameters are handled slightly differently for the two (ex.  
procs cannot take a block).

Matthew