From: Christophe Grandsire <christophe.grandsire@...>
Date: 2005-10-13T00:31:21+09:00
Subject: Re: Default argument values for blocks

Selon "Ara.T.Howard" <Ara.T.Howard@noaa.gov>:

> >
> > |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.
>
> but
>
>    method bool ? 42 : (0b101010) { "block" }
>
> is valid now.
>

Does it mean "method(bool ? 42 : (0b101010)) { "block"}"? It looks so strange I
don't know how to parse it. Also, doesn't the presence of the "?" make the ":"
unambiguous in this case? Just asking, I really don't know.
--
Christophe Grandsire.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

It takes a straight mind to create a twisted conlang.