------art_45408_9128991.1159416453324
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 9/28/06, Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale / gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 9/27/06, Robert Dober <robert.dober / gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 9/27/06, Vincent Fourmond <vincent.fourmond / 9online.fr> wrote:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:First-class_object




See the second comment "Is it or Ain't It"


Good points Rick


> Note that that list of the characteristics of a first class object in
> the wikipedia article is preceded by:
> "Depending on the language, this can imply:"
>
> Which seems to make the whole list rather subjective anyway.


Yup

Of course if you trace the wikipedia stance on what a literal value is
> you will find in the referenced article:
> "any notation for representing a value within programming language
> source code; for example, a string literal"
>
> So I'd say that the source code of the method is another example of a
> notation for expressing a value within programming language source
> code.


That is exactly where I got confused - and I am  still - again your point is
valid
As conclusion I still maintain my claim, and I will try to be as formal as
possible
    The object "Method" as a representation of methods in Ruby is first
class in the sense that they fulfill most of the "requirements"
and allow runtime manipulation which seems the main pratical issue, c.f.
OP's question and my answer ;)

Thx for your time
Robert

--
> Rick DeNatale
>
> My blog on Ruby
> http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
>
>


-- 
Deux choses sont infinies : l'univers et la bóŐise humaine ; en ce qui
concerne l'univers, je n'en ai pas acquis la certitude absolue.

- Albert Einstein

------art_45408_9128991.1159416453324--