[#4595] New block syntax — Daniel Amelang <daniel.amelang@...>

I'm really sorry if this isn't the place to talk about this. I've

25 messages 2005/03/21
[#4606] Re: New block syntax — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2005/03/21

Hi --

[#4629] Re: New block syntax — "Sean E. Russell" <ser@...> 2005/03/30

On Monday 21 March 2005 16:17, David A. Black wrote:

[#4648] about REXML::Encoding — speakillof <speakillof@...>

Hi.

15 messages 2005/03/31
[#4659] Re: about REXML::Encoding — "Sean E. Russell" <ser@...> 2005/04/04

On Thursday 31 March 2005 09:44, speakillof wrote:

Re: New block syntax

From: Florian Gro<florgro@...>
Date: 2005-03-21 16:45:38 UTC
List: ruby-core #4602
Berger, Daniel wrote:

> I extremely DISLIKE the new proposed syntax for proc/blocks.  I would
> rather we kept lambda/proc keyword mandatory, rather than end up with
> goofball syntax like the above, just so we can make anonymous procs
> more Perly.

This does not have much to do with Perl AFAIK.


In This Thread