From: "David A. Black" <dblack@...>
Date: 2005-08-06T22:26:26+09:00
Subject: Re: new block notation (was: Re: ruby-dev summary 26468-26661)

--8323328-1272333601-1123334780=:27783
Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="8323328-1272333601-1123334780=:27783"

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

--8323328-1272333601-1123334780=:27783
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE

Hi --

On Sat, 6 Aug 2005, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

> Hi,
>
> In message "Re: new block notation (was: Re: ruby-dev summary 26468-26661=
)"
>    on Sat, 6 Aug 2005 00:26:17 +0900, Florian Gro=DF <florgro@gmail.com> =
writes:
>
> |Why not go with  lambda(arg-list) { body }  or  fun(arg-list) { body }
> |or  def(arg-list) { body }  then? I think that the syntax would point
> |out that this is more than a method that turns a block into an object
> |and I think that it would be a simple solution.
>
> Introducing a new reserved word possibly break existing code.  Besides
> that, there's no good candidate for a new keyword: lambda is too
> awkward, def is not sufficient since we don't define anything here,
> and I expect the name fun is used everywhere as local variable names.

If proc and Proc.new behave the same, you could un-deprecate proc.


David

--=20
David A. Black
dblack@wobblini.net
--8323328-1272333601-1123334780=:27783--
--8323328-1272333601-1123334780=:27783--