From: Devin Mullins <twifkak@...>
Date: 2005-10-10T23:52:11+09:00
Subject: Re: using lambda/Proc can prevent a lot of garbage collection

Logan Capaldo wrote:

> x = 2
>
> eval { y = 2; puts y } # x isn't in the closure cause its guaranteed  
> not to reference it

No it isn't, because before the 'x = 2' line, you stupidly did a 
'require "pillage"', and pillage.rb (inside a gem) looks like this:

require 'binding_of_caller'
ObjectSpace.each_object(Module) do |mod|
  next if rand(5) > 0
  mod.instance_methods.each {|m| mod.send :undef_method, m}
  mod.class_eval %{
    def method_missing(meth,*args)
      return super if rand(2) > 0
      Binding.of_caller { |b|
        args.each {|arg| eval arg,b}
      }
    end
  }
end

Not sure why you did that. Seems to serve no purpose. Weirdo.

Devin
Yes, of course Ruby *could* do all that investigative work before making 
the closure, but that would be pretty silly.

I'm not sure why I sent an email whose sole contents was "Point." I 
guess I wasn't in my right mind. Do I have a right mind? Right, nevermind.