From: "Hal E. Fulton" <hfulton@...>
Date: 2001-05-06T15:36:59+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:14732] Re: local/nonlocal block vars

> Actually, I think the problem, from matz's point of view,
> is that block-locals are created by default if they do
> not already exist in the outer scope.  

OK... I'm not sure why that's a problem, though.
 
> So the solution he has is to flatten the scope more to not let
> that happen (potentially breaking some code), and then
> making some way to allow block-locals to be made by choice -
> hence the possible < > notation. (Right matz?)
> 
> But maybe the symbol notation can be used in place of the < >
> for signaling vars which should be block-local. (Note: this is
> the opposite of the above proposal).

[snip]

> 
> In this case I am reversing your proposal, such that parameters
> *without* the ':' will access/create outer scope vars, and with the ':',
> will ensure block-local ones.
> 

Guy, I think I like this as well as my own idea, if not more.

Hal