Re: [PATCH] lambda with normal block syntax

+1 to that.  I've only now started trying to write a lot of my
projects in 1.9 and updating my book for 1.9.  I'm finding things I
like and things I don't, but this is one of very few things that have
really put me off (_fantastic_ job on the updates for the most part).

I think right now is the time to discuss syntax or library changes
like this.  People are starting to use it and the syntax is getting
stretched as it's being put to use.  I've found in my tinkering that
most of the changes have streamlined my code, but this one
just...doesn't.  It may just be unfamiliarity but I'm having issues
with both recognition and semantic association.

Cutting off dialog about an issue like this "just because" seems a
little counter to the core values of an open source project.  I'm
sorry that I didn't notice this problem within whatever timeline has
been setup, but I think it's major enough to address at any stage (or
at the very least, discuss).

--Jeremy

On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 4:10 PM, Dave Thomas <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> On May 26, 2008, at 2:59 PM, David Flanagan wrote:
>
>> That is, Matz introduced the -> syntax in mid-2005. There were two years
>> and five months for discussion of the feature.  And then 1.9.0 was released
>> at the end of 2007.  It seems to me that that should be the end.
>>
>> Matz is Ruby's benevolent dictator. He's a smart guy and he's put a lot of
>> thought into this. If you like the language he created, you've got to trust
>> his ideas about good syntax. (As an aside, I wonder whether the Japanese
>> developers on the ruby-dev mailing list give Matz as much grief as we seem
>> to here :-)
>>
>> My understanding is that 1.9.0 is headed, relatively quickly, toward a
>> stable 1.9.1 release.  If we really don't think that -> is the optimum
>> lambda syntax, it seems to me that we should wait until the 2.0 development
>> tree opens.
>
> I disagree strongly. This is the period where we can actually use 1.9 for
> real work--until recently it really wasn't the case. And now, having used
> it, we're finding rough edges, and we're suggesting changes.
>
> Look at the length of this thread, and the near universal dislike of ->.
> Given that passion, and given that 1.9 is still fluid, what better time is
> there to discuss it? Surely making it a part of 1.9.1, which is considered
> stable, will make it a lot _harder_ to discuss and change, and will give
> Matz far more grief in terms of change.
>
> 1.9 was released to promote discussion. That's what we're doing. We can both
> update our books as needed when the dust settles :)
>
>
>
> Dave
>
>



-- 
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