2011/4/28 Chad Perrin <code / apotheon.net>:
> For my purposes at least, it seems perfectly consistent that methods
> should not be objects, in any case. Methods aren't *things*; they're
> techniques *things* use to get stuff done. They are what objects know,
> rather than being objects themselves.

I can not completely agree with that. One reason why methods should be
objects is because it is great to treat them like this (as the
quasi-method-object called "block" proves) and makes a lot of stuff
easier. Also, you can only bind objects to variables in Ruby, nothing
else. So if I want to use a method in several places that don't know
the method name beforehand, I have to wrap the method in a Proc
object.
BTW, having functions as objects is not really that unusual, see Javascript.

-- 
Roger Braun
rbraun.net | humoralpathologie.de