Re: New block syntax

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 22:42:01 +0900, Florian Gro<[e-mail]> wrote:
> Daniel Amelang wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> If we require Hashs to be of the { key => value } form instead of the {
> key, value } form then I think we could differentiate blocks and hashes
> without needing the empty argument list.

How does that work for empty hashes vs. empty-bodied lambdas?

Michael