Re: [PATCH] lambda with normal block syntax

Hi-

David Flanagan <[e-mail]> wrote on 05/27/2008 11:32:45 AM:
> James Gray wrote:
> > On May 27, 2008, at 12:33 PM, David Flanagan wrote:
> > 
> >> I think, and I hope others agree, that design of any new lambda 
syntax 
> >> (including Eric's bare blocks) should happen in the Ruby 2.0 
> >> development branch rather than being inserted into 1.9 at this very 
> >> late date.
> > 
> > Egad, no.  If we're going to "fix" this, let's do it now before 1.9 is 

> > released on the general populace.  There's no point in going from 
lambda 
> > in 1.8 to -> in 1.9 and then back to lambda in 2.0.  That's just 
silly.
> 
> I think you misunderstand me, James.  I'm suggesting that we debate the 
> removal of -> from 1.9 but that we hold off on debating any replacements 

> for -> (such as the fn keyword or Eric's bare blocks) and save that 
> design discussion for 2.0.  That is, maybe -> gets removed from 1.9, but 

> that nothing gets added to 1.9 in its place.

Personally, I think that sounds like a wise move.  We may find that an 
alternative is actually not needed, after using the new lambda that
can handle arguments more properly.

Using the improved lambda can allow us to see if the code becomes too 
verbose
in real use.  If we find a shorter keyword is needed, we can revisit that 
aspect
of the discussion.

This has been a very worthwhile discussion overall; it's very encouraging
for the Ruby community and Ruby 2.0.

Nate Wiger
PlayStation