a Python person's experience with Ruby

[Steve Howell]

--- Bruno Desthuilliers
<bdesth.quelquechose at free.quelquepart.fr> wrote:

> Colin J. Williams a écrit :
> > I'm not sure that I like add 3, 5, 7
> > 
> > but it would be nice to be able to drop the
> parentheses
> > when no argument is required.
> > 
> > Thus:         close;
> > could replace close();
> 
> This just could not work given Python's object
> model. The parens 
> actually *are* the call operator.
> 

I mostly agree with you, but in the specific use case
of having just a single token on a line, you could
argue that Python could DWIM on calling an object if
the object is callable, since otherwise it's just a
no-op.  I think the argument against doing that is
more based on explicit-vs.-implicit principle versus
actual constraints of the object model.

Another aspect of Ruby is that the final expression
evaluated in a method actually gets returned as the
result of a method, which has further implications on
whether "close" is simply evaluated or called.




      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page. 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs