From: Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>
Date: 2009-08-24T07:33:31+09:00
Subject: [ruby-core:25058] Re: Proposal: Simpler block format

Hi,

In message "Re: [ruby-core:25049] Re: Proposal: Simpler block format"
    on Sun, 23 Aug 2009 15:53:03 +0900, Yehuda Katz <wycats@gmail.com> writes:

|Things that currently don't parse are fine to become blocks. I'd be worried
|about a case that currently parsed fine as a Hash but might be expected to
|be parsed as a block if this feature existed. Can you think of any?

I don't worry about the ambiguity for the parser, but have anxiety for
humans.  Under the new syntax, when we see

  m {"this is a block not a proc"}

there are two possibility.  And it would be burden for mind of the
programmers.  That's the reason I insisted the past proposal (that
was from David Black, IIRC).  This time, we have working code for the
proposal, so we can try.  Let's see how we feel.

							matz.