From: "trans.  (T. Onoma)" <transami@...>
Date: 2004-12-03T20:57:24+09:00
Subject: Re: nested defs, what if...

On Friday 03 December 2004 04:00 am, Mauricio Fern叩ndez wrote:
| On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 03:02:49PM +0900, trans.  (T. Onoma) wrote:
| > Yes, I think so since lambdas are not singleton/multiton (could they be?)
| > Of course the fix is something like:
| >
| >    class A
| >      def a(y)
| >        @a_b ||= lambda { |x| x + y }
| >        10.times { |i| print @a_b(i) }
| >      end
| >    end
|
| Not quite...
| >> class A; def a(y); @a_b ||= lambda { |x| x + y }; 10.times { |i|
| >> print @a_b[i]}; end end
| => nil
| >> a = A.new
| => #<A:0x401fda10>
| >> a.a(10)
| 10111213141516171819=> 10
| >> a.a(1000)
| 10111213141516171819=> 10

Ah right. There's a gotchya. Try,

    class A
      def a(y)
        @a_b ||= lambda { |x,y| x + y }
        10.times { |i| print @a_b(i,y) }
      end
    end

I think this is another reason for having the inner defs with a protected 
scope.

| > But true inner methods would be the bomb for these use cases (IMHO).
|
| They don't seem any more powerful than lambdas, just sugar.
| They would offer some opportunities for optimization though.

Depends on the meaning of "powerful". But see above. Scope isolation can be 
advantageous. And, yes, optimization would be nice too.

T.