Re: One more proc question

On Friday,  5 March 2004 at 13:04:29 +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> In message "Re: One more proc question"
>     on 04/03/05, Jim Freeze <[e-mail]> writes:
> 
> |Well then, why isn't the syntax like so:
> |
> |  def fred
> |    block = Block.new
> |  end
> 
> Because I want to deprecate Proc.new without attached block eventually
> in the future.

Currently I have some code that uses Proc.new. It was
kind of a coin toss between lambda and Proc.new.
Seems like you are saying I should change it to lambda.

> 
> | I.e., what about changing Proc to Block?
> | Then, we can have 'proc' and its alias 'lambda'.
> 
> Maybe.  But we need to think about compatibility.
> 

I should probably say 'rename' Proc to Block.

-- 
Jim Freeze

Power, n:
	The only narcotic regulated by the SEC instead of the FDA.