Jaroslaw Zabiello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 14:23:21 +0200, Sybren Stuvel wrote: > > > Another reason for me not to use Ruby, is that there is no distinction > > between those two lines of code: > > > > x = somefunc > > x = somefunc() > > It has no meaning. Just use always () if you like. But sometimes it is [...]
Well... has no meaning *in Ruby*, yes. You're begging the question! (The implied question being "*Should* it have meaning?") There is a reasonable argument for assigning different meanings to foo and foo(), as I'm sure you know: regardless of syntax, there is a distinction to be made between calling a function and referring to it (e.g. to keep a reference to the function for later use as a callback). I guess Ruby uses code blocks for that purpose? Seems there are swings and roundabouts. http://blog.ianbicking.org/ruby-python-power.html#ruby-blocks John -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
