From: Alexandru Popescu Date: 2005-03-21T23:33:44+09:00 Subject: 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� 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-----