Re: concerns about Proc,lambda,block

On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 07:51:10AM +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> In message "Re: concerns about Proc,lambda,block"
>     on 04/03/03, Mathieu Bouchard <[e-mail]> writes:
> 
> |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.
> 
> I hope so too.  The point is no one behavior can satisfy all.

To put it bluntly, we'll save some time if you answer to the following
question:

do you want to keep Proc and lambda as separate things (like Class &
Module) or would you consider merging them and reaching a compromise on
their semantics?

-- 
 _           _                             
| |__   __ _| |_ ___ _ __ ___   __ _ _ __  
| '_ \ / _` | __/ __| '_ ` _ \ / _` | '_ \ 
| |_) | (_| | |_\__ \ | | | | | (_| | | | |
|_.__/ \__,_|\__|___/_| |_| |_|\__,_|_| |_|
	Running Debian GNU/Linux Sid (unstable)
batsman dot geo at yahoo dot com

    if (argc > 1 && strcmp(argv[1], "-advice") == 0) {
	printf("Don't Panic!\n");
	exit(42);
    }
	-- Arnold Robbins in the LJ of February '95, describing RCS