Re: Ruby and OO (fwd)

[Bruce Lewis <address@hidden>]

I'd like to point out that what makes the Ruby syntax convenient is that
it does not force the programmer to think in OO terms.  Even if the
block { |i| puts(i) } is implemented as some kind of object, from the
programmer's perspective it's just a function.  There's no need to
establish a package/object/method/statement/expression hierarchy as in
Java.

Don Blaheta <dpb@cs.brown.edu> writes:

> (List-each lst (lambda (i) (puts i)))

Here's complete code that gets rid of the scary word, "lambda", allowing

 (list-each lst (i) (puts i))

to work.  Any Scheme implementation that complies to the 1998 standard
will handle it.

(define (puts i)
  (display i)
  (newline))

(define-syntax list-each
  (syntax-rules ()
    ((list-each lst args expr ...)
     (for-each (lambda args expr ...) lst))))

(define lst (list 1 2 3))

(define (test-list-each)
  (list-each lst (i) (puts i)))

-- 
<brlewis@[(if (brl-related? message)    ; Bruce R. Lewis
              "users.sourceforge.net"   ; http://brl.sourceforge.net/
              "alum.mit.edu")]>