Re: concerns about Proc,lambda,block

On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 06:38:20 +0900, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
>> In message "Re: concerns about Proc,lambda,block"
>> on 04/03/02, "David A. Black" <[e-mail]> writes: |
>> irb(main):014:0> n.arity == m.arity |   => true
>> I think these arity values should be different.  I will fix. Making
>> them separate class is the issue I have not yet get conclusion.
> Hi Matz, may I remind you that I wish proc/block/method were closer, with
> as few differences as it makes sense, because it's a mess explaining it
> to someone else, and it's a mess remembering how it works, and the
> differences between versions of Ruby. So I hope Ruby 2.0 will make it
> _simpler_ and _final_. I don't want them to change again in 2.2 and 2.4.
> I think making them simpler will reduce the temptation to change them
> again.
>
> (Oh, and I still want the merging of Class and Module, even though I
> won't talk much about it anymore. I mention it because it's the same kind
> of thing; that is, it's about removing unnecessary elements from the
> language.)

I agree with your suggestion for proc/method/block, because they're all 
"Callable" objects.

I disagree with what you have suggested about Class/Module. I don't think 
that this is a harmful distinction, and actually makes the language easier 
to use. Without the Class/Module distinction, then there's little to 
distinguish Ruby from languages which have multiple inheritance; I prefer 
the conceptual clarity that mix-ins provide.

-austin
--
austin ziegler    * [e-mail] * Toronto, ON, Canada
software designer * pragmatic programmer * 2004.03.02
                                         * 17.10.41