From: "David A. Black" <dblack@...>
Date: 2005-08-05T00:25:07+09:00
Subject: Re: ruby-dev summary 26468-26661

--8323328-1500228497-1123169102=:17693
Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="8323328-1500228497-1123169102=:17693"

  This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
  while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

--8323328-1500228497-1123169102=:17693
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE

Hi --

On Thu, 4 Aug 2005, [ISO-8859-1] Brian Schr=F6der wrote:

> On 04/08/05, David A. Black <dblack@wobblini.net> wrote:
>> Hi --
>>
>> On Thu, 4 Aug 2005, [ISO-8859-1] Brian Schr=F6der wrote:
>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> Then why don't we use two different delimiters, e.g. (,) which would
>>> even unify with method declaration.
>>>
>>> { (a, b=3D12) a+b }
>>> is quite clear, and counting nesting parenthesis has to be done in any
>>> parser so this
>>>
>>> { (a=3D12, (b,c) =3D [1,2]) a+b**c }
>>> is also possible
>>
>> However, { (a) } would be ambiguous. (I don't particularly mind living
>> without default values in blocks, but I think () wouldn't fly.)
>
> One could disambiguate this the same way it is done with methods:
>
> { () (a) }
>
> like in
>
> def anonymus() (a) end

But then you'd have empty parens all over the place.  I guess there
aren't that many paramless blocks, but there are some, like:

   Hash.new { () [] }   # ugh

> or one could use a differnt pair of symbols, though I don't really like t=
hat.
>
> { <a, b=3D12> a+b }

   irb(main):005:0> def x(a =3D 1 > 0); p a; end
   =3D> nil
   irb(main):006:0> x
   true

:-)


David

--=20
David A. Black
dblack@wobblini.net
--8323328-1500228497-1123169102=:17693--
--8323328-1500228497-1123169102=:17693--