[#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: Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...>
Date: 2005-03-31 14:25:20 UTC
List: ruby-core #4646
On Mar 31, 2005 6:44 AM, Sean E. Russell <ser@germane-software.com> wrote:
> The 'lambda' keyword *is* tedious, if you use higher-order functions a lot.
> But, personally, I like the proposed change to hash syntax; I feel it is more
> orthoganal, easy to remember (albeit mildly), and easier to type than the
> current syntax.

I do like [:] as a null hash, and I like the way of specifying --
although it feels a bit
too "Python" to me ;)

That said, I have concerns about backwards compatibility. It feels
like this change
might be too large even for Ruby 2.0. But that's just me.

-austin
-- 
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com
               * Alternate: austin@halostatue.ca

In This Thread