From: Curt Hibbs <curt@...>
Date: 2005-02-18T20:36:19+09:00
Subject: Re: A Ruby-relevant quote from Alan Kay

Csaba Henk wrote:
>
> On 2005-02-18, Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net> wrote:
> > in the program. Why do I use one syntax when passing only one block to
> > a method, but a different syntax when passing two?
>
> That one block thing is just what needed in the 92% of cases. So
> I think it was
> reasonable to choose this as the thing to be sugared to death.
>
> If you think a little bit, you'll see that you couldn't put together a
> similarly comofortable sugaring scheme such that it's usable for passing
> multiple blocks/procs in a sugared way.

That's a limitation of the Ruby syntax. I think Curt's point was that at
least as far as syntax was concerned that Smalltalk got it right. There is
no such special case or syntax in Smalltalk - everything is very consistent.

- The other Curt