On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 03:10:21 +0900, Dave Benjamin wrote:
> "Yukihiro Matsumoto" <matz / ruby-lang.org> wrote in message
> news:1060863609.376407.27138.nullmailer / picachu.netlab.jp...
>> |Perhaps it would be a good idea to add []
>> |to Continuation to enable both to repsond to the same protocol?
>> Nice idea.  I will add it.
> Wow! Didn't take much arm-twisting there, eh? =)
> 
> I'm the "Python guy" from comp.lang.functional. ;) I'd still like to
> understand why the () operator can't be overloaded in Ruby, necessitating
> the use of [] for Proc objects instead. What was the motivation behind
> that restriction?

Because () isn't really an operator -- at least not yet, and I don't know 
whether or not Matz will make it an operator. I'm not sure whether I'd want 
it to be an operator. Maybe Matz can make it so that the [] syntactic sugar 
for Proc can work with () as well.

-austin
--
austin ziegler    * austin / halostatue.ca * Toronto, ON, Canada
software designer * pragmatic programmer * 2003.08.14
                                         * 16.21.46