From: "David A. Black" <dblack@...>
Date: 2004-03-03T21:04:34+09:00
Subject: Re: concerns about Proc,lambda,block

Hi --

On Wed, 3 Mar 2004, Mauricio Fern�ndez wrote:

> 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 <matju@sympatico.ca> 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?

A third possibility: keep them separate, but make them *more* like
Class and Module -- meaning, make it possible to determine, from the
object itself, which semantics are required.  

The way Proc is right now is sort of like having only "Class", but
having some Class objects invisibly behave like modules:

  class A ... end
  class B ... end    # "module context" (whatever that would mean :-)

  # later ...

  A.new
  B.new   # whoops, Class-created-in-module-context (but B contains
          # no information or knowledge of this)


David

-- 
David A. Black
dblack@wobblini.net