[#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: want_object? - possible?

From: "Berger, Daniel" <Daniel.Berger@...>
Date: 2005-03-24 17:44:13 UTC
List: ruby-core #4617
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Austin Ziegler [mailto:halostatue@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 10:33 AM
> To: ruby-core@ruby-lang.org
> Subject: Re: want_object? - possible?
> 
> 
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 02:38:54 +0900, Berger, Daniel 
> <Daniel.Berger@qwest.com> wrote:
> > I suppose there's the danger of the slippery slope, where we start 
> > adding more and more context checking methods, like want_lvalue?, 
> > want_rvalue?, etc, and things get out of control.
> 
> Um. I oppose this for the sole reason that it looks, smells, 
> sounds, and feels far too much like wantarray from Perl. I 
> think that is one of Perl's nastiest features.

I generally don't have a problem with it, but I can understand why folks
would.  Given that we already have "block_given?" (which I realize is a
different beast) I wasn't sure how palatable this suggestion would be.

If folks hate the idea, I understand.  I just thought it might be easier
than altering syntax. :)

Regards,

Dan


In This Thread

Prev Next