From: Eric Mahurin <eric_mahurin@...>
Date: 2005-10-13T00:09:55+09:00
Subject: Re: Default argument values for blocks

--- Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> In message "Re: Default argument values for blocks"
>     on Wed, 12 Oct 2005 20:42:06 +0900, Christophe Grandsire
> <christophe.grandsire@free.fr> writes:
> 
> |Hey, what about ":(foo="bar"){puts foo}"? It's still not
> beautiful but it's
> |still less annoying, and in Ruby we are already used to see
> colons at the
> |beginning of a word. Of course, overloading ":" may not be
> considered a good
> |idea, but it shouldn't be a parsing problem as this one
> would always be
> |followed by a "(" (and that doesn't happen with symbols).
> And:
> |
> |collection.each:(foo="bar"){puts foo}
> |
> |isn't that bad :) .
> 
> I have never thought of that.  Hmm, let me think about it
> during the
> conference trip.  I'm leaving tomorrow morning.

Here's another one:

f = .(foo="bar"){puts foo}

collection.each.(foo="bar){puts foo}

"." is already used for method call, so why not lambda/block
definition?  I don't think this would collide with anything
because an identifier should normally follow "." and we are
following it with "(" here.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com