[#4522] Undefined Errno::EPROTO and the like raises NameError — "Florian Frank" <flori@...>
Hi,
[#4533] giving acces readline to rl_line_buffer — "Cs. Henk" <csaba-ml@...>
Hi!
[#4548] Ruby 1.8.2 array of hash entries functions incorrectly — noreply@...
Bugs item #1613, was opened at 2005-03-09 19:49
[#4561] rb_reg_quote weirdness — Nikolai Weibull <mailing-lists.ruby-core@...>
(Two weirdnesses in one day.)
Hi,
[#4567] Immutable Ropes — Nikolai Weibull <mailing-lists.ruby-core@...>
Note how I didn't write "Immutable Strings" in the subject.
[#4575] Allowing "?" in struct members — "Berger, Daniel" <Daniel.Berger@...>
Hi all,
[#4587] 0**0==1? — Bertram Scharpf <lists@...>
Hi,
[#4595] New block syntax — Daniel Amelang <daniel.amelang@...>
I'm really sorry if this isn't the place to talk about this. I've
Daniel Amelang wrote:
Hi --
On Monday 21 March 2005 16:17, David A. Black wrote:
Hi --
Hey David, I think that we've had some misunderstandings due to
Hi --
On Wednesday 30 March 2005 20:55, David A. Black wrote:
On Sunday 20 March 2005 21:31, Daniel Amelang wrote:
[#4601] Re: New block syntax — "Berger, Daniel" <Daniel.Berger@...>
> -----Original Message-----
[#4611] want_object? - possible? — "Berger, Daniel" <Daniel.Berger@...>
Hi all,
[#4619] Re: want_object? - possible? — Daniel Berger <djberg96@...>
--- nobu.nokada@softhome.net wrote:
Hi --
On 3/24/05, David A. Black <dblack@wobblini.net> wrote:
Hi --
On 4/14/05, David A. Black <dblack@wobblini.net> wrote:
On 14 Apr 2005, at 22:20, Mark Hubbart wrote:
On 4/15/05, Eric Hodel <drbrain@segment7.net> wrote:
[#4622] tempfile.rb — Tilman Sauerbeck <tilman@...>
Hi,
[#4648] about REXML::Encoding — speakillof <speakillof@...>
Hi.
On Thursday 31 March 2005 09:44, speakillof wrote:
Hi.
I've tested, applied, and committed your Encoding patch, Nobu.
Hi,
New block syntax
I'm really sorry if this isn't the place to talk about this. I've
already brought it up on ruby-talk, but I think ruby-core is where the
people involved in the issue are.
I really like the new proposed syntax for proc/blocks:
b = {|| puts "good idea"}
But the empty pipes make it ungraceful, in my opinion. I understand
the need to differentiate between the {} syntax for blocks and the {}
syntax for hashes. Thus, I propose that instead of changing the block
syntax to resolve the ambiguity, we change the hash syntax.
Consider the following alternative hash constructs:
# The key value pairs completely differentiate the hash from an array,
# allowing us to borrow the [] from array's constructor
hash = [name:'bill', age:25]
# So what does an empty hash look like? Here's one possiblility.
hash = [:]
If the preceding syntax were adopted, the {} braces would no longer
partially belong to hash, but entirely to blocks/procs, giving us much
needed flexibility in syntax.
# Now this works!
b = { puts "good idea?" }
# This is a method call with an empty hash as an argument,
# and a block passed in.
# The current way of doing this is do_it({}) {} , which isn't that bad.
do_it [:] {}
Just an alternative to the current approach. Thanks for your attention!
Dan