Re: [PATCH] lambda with normal block syntax

Hi --

On Tue, 27 May 2008, David Flanagan wrote:

> Major kudos to Eric, by the way, for diving in and tackling the problem 
> rather than just complaining about it. Most of the discussion of -> occurred 
> before Eric's patch, however, and that discussion was (in my opinion) 
> inappropriate and disrespectful.

I agree about Eric's efforts, but let's keep the other stuff a little
less judgmental and accusatory, please.

I've never been hesitant to tell Matz what I think are problematic
aspects of Ruby, and he's never suggested that I stop. Matz knows that
I respect him and the language; he knows that I resigned from a
tenured university professorship to become a full-time Ruby
practitioner and author, and he sees me steering literally hundreds of
people toward best practices (I hope :-) on mailing lists, in training
courses, and so on.

And of course I don't just mean me. As you said in another post, Matz
is the benevolent dictator, but his style has always been to discuss
things and to welcome input, and until he drops the axe on this
discussion (which he clearly hasn't), I don't see any reason to
terminate it.

Now you've got me thinking about the time at RubyConf 2003 where I
told Matz that, with respect to some particular issue, we needed him
to be "less benevolent and more dictator." I think it might have been
something about proc/Proc/lambda.... :-)


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 23-26           London (Skills Matter)
See http://www.rubypal.com for details and updates!