[#2529] concerns about Proc,lambda,block — "David A. Black" <dblack@...>

Hi --

39 messages 2004/03/01
[#2531] Re: concerns about Proc,lambda,block — ts <decoux@...> 2004/03/01

>>>>> "D" == David A Black <dblack@wobblini.net> writes:

[#2533] Re: concerns about Proc,lambda,block — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2004/03/01

Hi --

[#2537] Re: concerns about Proc,lambda,block — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2004/03/01

Hi,

[#2542] Re: concerns about Proc,lambda,block — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2004/03/02

[#2545] Re: concerns about Proc,lambda,block — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2004/03/02

Hi,

[#2550] Re: concerns about Proc,lambda,block — Mauricio Fern疣dez <batsman.geo@...> 2004/03/03

On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 07:51:10AM +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#2703] Proposed patch to add SSL support to net/pop.rb — Daniel Hobe <daniel@...>

This patch adds support to Net::POP for doing POP over SSL. Modeled on how

19 messages 2004/03/27
[#2704] Re: Proposed patch to add SSL support to net/pop.rb — Daniel Hobe <daniel@...> 2004/03/27

This is v2 of the patch. Cleaned up a bit and added some more docs.

[#2707] Re: Proposed patch to add SSL support to net/pop.rb — Daniel Hobe <daniel@...> 2004/03/28

v3 of the patch:

[#2721] Re: Proposed patch to add SSL support to net/pop.rb — Minero Aoki <aamine@...> 2004/03/30

Hi,

Re: concerns about Proc,lambda,block

From: Eivind Eklund <eivind@...>
Date: 2004-03-04 12:33:18 UTC
List: ruby-core #2569
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 02:01:49PM +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> |Based on what you said above, I'd expect the first and third calls of 
> |the following code not to generate a warning, but they do.
> 
> This warning is caused by Proc#call itself, not by lambda argument
> checker.  Its purpose is to warn and guide users to prepare future
> proc argument semantics, which |a| receives only one value.  The new
> semantics will be available on 2.0.

While you're fixing this, will you also be changing so
  some_method() { ... }
is the same as
  some_method() { || ... }
?

I found the present semantic ({ ... } being the same as
{ |*unused| ...}) very surprising when I discovered it,
and I still find it risky (it ends up with things failing silently if I
make an error in argument counts, rather than giving me an exception.)

Eivind.

In This Thread