From: Matt Mower <matt.mower@...>
Date: 2005-02-01T20:58:44+09:00
Subject: Re: Default values for block parameters

On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 18:27:28 +0900, Mark Hubbart <discordantus@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 17:10:50 +0900, Robert Klemme <bob.news@gmx.net > wrote:
> > > Since this workaround is a touch unaesthetic I wonder whether there
> > > was a particular reason for not allowing default values to be
> > > specified for block parameters?  Do you happen to know?
> >
> > Dunno, but here's my guess: since blocks are usually called at a single
> > place in code (as opposed to a method) default parameters do not make much
> > sense generally.
> 
> I think that's a good assessment... I think historically, they may
> have been considered superfluous. But it could change in the future;
> with the addition of &block syntax in a block's parameter list
> (available now, in 1.9, and later, in 2.0), it might be that block
> parameter lists are going to be made more consistent with method
> parameter lists.
> 

Robert, Mark, thanks for your views.  That was really helpful.

M

-- 
Matt Mower :: http://matt.blogs.it/