Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on

Doing something completely foreign and, dare I say, Perl-esque seems
bizarre just to get a slightly different semantic range.  I'd MUCH
rather see something like the lambda suggestion or even using def in
its place (keep the definition of functions and anonymous functions
within the same syntactic range).

I use Ruby for its LACK of line noise.  Adding $arbitrary -> (things |
like) >> this ^*syntax->>(when there are much more consistent and
prettier alternatives) puts a bad taste in my mouth.

--Jeremy

On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 1:16 PM, David A. Black <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi --
>
>
>
>  On Tue, 6 May 2008, Paul Brannan wrote:
>
>
> > On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 02:02:34AM +0900, David A. Black wrote:
> >
> > >  define_method(:m) &lambda(x,y,z) { block }
> > >
> >
> > That looks like the binary & operator, not the unary block-pass
> > operator (or whatever it's called).
> >
>
>  I thought that before a Proc object it was automatically the
>  block-pass, or to_proc, or whatever, operator.
>
>
>
>
>  David
>
>  --
>  Rails training from David A. Black and Ruby Power and Light:
>   INTRO TO RAILS         June 9-12            Berlin
>   ADVANCING WITH RAILS   June 16-19           Berlin
>   INTRO TO RAILS         June 24-27           London (Skills Matter)
>  See http://www.rubypal.com for details and updates!
>
>



-- 
http://jeremymcanally.com/
http://entp.com

Read my books:
Ruby in Practice (http://manning.com/mcanally/)
My free Ruby e-book (http://humblelittlerubybook.com/)

Or, my blogs:
http://mrneighborly.com
http://rubyinpractice.com