David Garamond <davegaramond / icqmail.com> writes:

> sorry this is a bit philosophical, but i just wonder whether ruby can
> be considered a language that treats functions and objects as "first
> class"? considering you can't pass a reference-to-a-method as an
> argument to another function/method/block in a straightforward manner.

No, I don't believe it can be considered such a language.

However, generating a bound or unbound method object is only a single
method call away, so it isn't particularly difficult to work with
method objects if you need to.


Cheers


Dave