[#2529] concerns about Proc,lambda,block — "David A. Black" <dblack@...>
Hi --
>>>>> "D" == David A Black <dblack@wobblini.net> writes:
Hi --
Hi,
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 08:44:25 +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Hi,
On Wednesday, 3 March 2004 at 8:00:09 +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Hi,
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 07:51:10AM +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Hi,
[#2575] Comment football being played... with lib/test/unit.rb — Nathaniel Talbott <nathaniel@...>
[Resent because I accidentally signed it the first time]
[#2577] problem with Net::HTTP in 1.8.1 — Ian Macdonald <ian@...>
Hello,
Hi,
[#2582] One more proc question — Dave Thomas <dave@...>
Sorry about this... :)
Hi,
On Friday, 5 March 2004 at 12:52:15 +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Hi,
[#2588] Duck typing chapter — Dave Thomas <dave@...>
I've posted a rough first pass at a chapter about duck typing (and
[#2606] Thought about class definitions — Dave Thomas <dave@...>
If we allowed
[#2628] YAML complaint while generating RDoc — Dave Thomas <dave@...>
With the latest CVS, I get
[#2640] patch to tempfile.rb to handle ENAMETOOLONG — Joel VanderWerf <vjoel@...>
[#2644] RDoc proporsal — "H.Yamamoto" <ocean@...2.ccsnet.ne.jp>
Hi, rubyists.
[#2646] Problems rdoc'ing cvs... — Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@...>
I have just done
On Friday, March 12, 2004, 4:15:42 AM, Dave wrote:
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Dave Thomas wrote:
[#2661] Pathological slowdown in 1.8 — Ryan Davis <ryand@...>
Hi all,
[#2697] lib/ruby/1.9/yaml.rb:193: [BUG] Segmentation fault — Mauricio Fern疣dez <batsman.geo@...>
Mauricio Fern疣dez wrote:
On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 09:42:42AM +0900, why the lucky stiff 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
This is v2 of the patch. Cleaned up a bit and added some more docs.
v3 of the patch:
Hi,
I agree that there are a lot of arguments to #start, but I think it is the
On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 16:24:17 +0900, Daniel Hobe wrote:
On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 13:27:31 +0900, Daniel Hobe wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 04:05:06PM +0900, Minero Aoki wrote:
[#2709] typos in lib/singleton.rb — Ian Macdonald <ian@...>
Hello,
[#2713] more spelling and grammar fixes — Ian Macdonald <ian@...>
Hello,
> Hello,
Hi,
Re: questions... about Proc,lambda,block
Hi,
I've noticed I haven't explained well about the Proc orphan.
"break" and "return" will cause LocalJumpError, when they are called
after their corresponding destination is passed. For "break", the
destination is the block attached method invocation; for "return", it
is the method surrounding the block attached invocation.
Examples (some of them do not work right now as I explain in 1.8/1.9; I'm fixing them):
Proc.new {
break
}.call # LocalJumpError
# in above example, break is executed from "call", which is invoked
# after Proc.new is finished.
def meth1(&block)
block.call
end
meth1{break} # fine
# this one is OK, because "call" is called before meth1 is finished.
def meth2
Proc.new{
return
}.call
end # fine
# this is OK, because at the point of "call", the destination (end of
# meth2) still exists.
def meth3(&block)
block
end
b=meth3{break}
b.call # LocalJumpError
# break is executed after meth3 finished.
def meth4
b = meth3{return}
b.call
end # fine
# this is OK. why? because meth4 is still working.
def meth5
meth3{return}
end
meth5.call # LocalJumpError
# return from meth5 cannot be done after meth5 is finished.
lambda{break} # fine, no break will pass lambda
lambda{return} # fine, no return will pass lambda
I should have organized things earlier, but I think (and I hope) this
is the final design decision about break and return from Procs, unless
someone prove me I'm wrong.
matz.