From: Christophe Grandsire Date: 2005-10-13T13:39:04+09:00 Subject: Re: Default argument values for blocks En r�ponse � David A. Black : > > But it's so arbitrary. Surely there's no general principle of "being > used to" a given punctuation mark that makes it acceptable for > something like this. > No, but do you really want to have "->" instead? > I don't mean to jump on your idea specifically. The whole thread > seems to be about which arbitrary bit of punctuation might be least > ugly. I'm totally unconvinced that default values for block variables > are worth doing any of them. > The problem is that default values for blocks *are* now in Ruby 1.9, and thus are probably going to be in Ruby2, and use right now the ugly "->". If they are going to be there, let's have at least a non-intrusive syntax. Yes it's arbitrary, but just as much as using : for symbols and @ for instance variables. At the end of the day, every syntax in a language is a matter of choice and convention, i.e. it's arbitrary. I also don't really see why blocks arguments should have default values. But if we're going to have them, at least let's have an OK syntax for them, instead of an ugly beast. -- Christophe Grandsire. http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr You need a straight mind to invent a twisted conlang.