> Actually the reason this is kind of cool is not the syntax but the
> semantics.  It's much more expressive than any number of &:->()...
> things that have been proposed -- and looks better.  (There may be
> some connection there too.)

Agreed - its very nice semantically too. It has much more meaning than 
.map(&:method_name) I think.

> I wonder, though, whether it would be too easy for it to trample on
> other method names.  I guess that's true of anything -- you'd just
> have to make sure you didn't have two conceptions of some plural
> thing.

The method_missing code will perform "super" first to ensure that any 
per-existing dynamic methods on the Array are evaluated first. Then it 
attempts to call the method on the collection items. If they return a 
NoMethodError then the original error object is returned. I think that's 
cleanest.

But yes, its a buyer-beware situation. So - "Smart Buyers Only"!

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.