From: Mike <mike@...>
Date: 2001-05-30T00:04:13+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:15930] Re: Block arguments vs method arguments

On Tue, 29 May 2001 23:09:56 +0900
ts <decoux@moulon.inra.fr> wrote:

> >>>>> "M" == Mike  <mike@lepton.fr> writes:
> 
> M> Why aren't they arguments? or why aren't methods arguments a
> M> multi-assignement? 
> 
>  a block is defined independantly of |x, y, z| not a method.

I don't understand. Blocks have arity, their arguments are not independant.

> 
> M> Then I rejoin the still open (?) thread about local block vars.
> M> I like the <a, b, *c> notation that was proposed to have a, b and c
> M> local to the block. It would be nice it if these args would be defined
>                                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> M> like method arguments, and I would love it if variables created in the
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>  What do you want to say with this ?

I'd like to be able to define block arguments like method arguments; to have a kind of block that is more method like.

> 
> M> block would be created in the caller's binding. 
> 
>  This mean that <x, y> will be equivalent to (x, y), strange why do you use
>  a different delimitor ?
> 

I would like to use the same delimitor, but it may be hard to differenciate with expression brackets.

>  Now I can write |$x, $y| the next step will be to have 'def toto($x, $y)' ?
> 

I like def toto(@x, @y), but it has already been discussed and rejected.
I dislike global variables...

>  There are too many difference between variables in || and the definition
>  of a def.

This is not what I excepted. Are there as many differences between blocks and methods?
I see blocks as code with the creator's binding and methods as code with the receiver's binding. Blocks and methods are very similar for me. Aren't they?

Mike.
midulo.