From: Christophe Grandsire <christophe.grandsire@...>
Date: 2005-10-13T04:25:32+09:00
Subject: Re: Default argument values for blocks

En r�ponse � Eric Mahurin :
>>|
>>|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.
> 

Although I find it kind of attractive, I am concerned about the 
overloading of ".", which all in all is a bit small to have much 
meaning. I'm afraid it would get unnoticed. ":" I think wouldn't, and 
there's already a precedent in Ruby of having a construction begin with 
":" (namely symbols). So I kind of like it, but am wondering about its 
readability. ":" is similar, but has a higher weight, and is thus better 
noticed.

But if my proposal gets struck down, I'll be the first to vote for 
yours, since "\" kind of was refused by matz himself because of font issues.
-- 
Christophe Grandsire.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

You need a straight mind to invent a twisted conlang.