From: Trans <transfire@...>
Date: 2005-08-05T21:41:07+09:00
Subject: Re: ruby-dev summary 26468-26661


Jim Freeze wrote:
> >
> > Don't worry.  The block syntax will not be changed.  Never.
> >
> >                                                         matz.
>
> Ok, that's good to hear. So, if a new lambda syntax is created,
> it doesn't necessarilly need to work for block? That is, it won't
> be an alternate syntax for defining blocks?
>
> Is there a reason that this notation wouldn't/couldn't work
> for defining lambdas?
>
>   f = () { puts 5 }    # () always required for a lambda. space doesn't matter
>   f = (a){ puts a }
>   f = (x, y=5) { ... }
>
> And, if used as a block...
>
>   func(a,b) (x=2*2) { ... }
>

My concern with this is admittedly a matter of wishful thinking, but I
would nonetheless like to see ruby with currying one day like this:

  def f(x,y)
    x + y
  end

  g = f(1)

  g(2)  #=> 3

which means:

  f(1)(2)  #=> 3

Your proposed block notation would make this impossible.

T.