Re: New block syntax

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

[quote Michael Walter::on 3/21/2005 4:03 PM]
> 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
> 
> 
Hi!

This will probably be considered a sacrilege by most of you, but unfortunately I am real newbie to
Ruby (from Java world).

I have read the following:
1/ Kernel::lambda converts a block to a Proc
2/ when passing a block as a parameter it is automatically converted to a Proc

My question (wondering rather) is why having these two different mechanisms?

Isn't possible to directly assign a block to a variable, as in parameter case?

tia, and sorry if this is completely stupid,
- --
:alex |.::the_mindstorm::.|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFCPtr9TTDTje0R2dgRArHbAJ9Q47dZacGpxgkeli+yLjYdywl9OACfTbLE
HzATuoEb23d3AjSR9sLJOps=
=U2kN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----