Re: [PATCH] lambda with normal block syntax

At 04:59 08/05/27, David Flanagan wrote:

>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 :-)

>* block parameter with default argument patch: likely.
>* block without attached method patch: need more persuasion.

The "need more persuasion" for me is a very clear indication that
Matz is open to further arguments, and may change his opinion (or not)
depending on what he sees.

I wouldn't call this giving him grief, and I can't claim that I have
read all the postings on ruby-dev in detail, but I can assure you that
if some of the Japanese developers have differences, they don't hold
their arguments back, neither among each other or with Matz.
Ruby wouldn't have come that far if they did.

As for the topic at hand, I also have to say that -> for the purpose
and in the position it is currently used feels rather strange for me.
But then I have to admit that I'm not using lambda/-> much, for what
I do, the usual blocks and occasionally a define_method have gone
a long way. Also, I have noticed the multitude of similar but slightly
different ways of creating procs/blocks/lambdas/method objects,...,
and I think that independent of the "to -> or not to ->" issue, some
cleanup and streamlining in this area would really help.

I'd expect that the 'average' Ruby user doesn't get too many chances
to use the above features, either, and this may be one reason why
we haven't seen everybody chime in in this thread.

Regards,   Martin.


#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:[e-mail]