From: Lionel Thiry <lthiryidontwantspams@...>
Date: 2005-10-14T01:21:55+09:00
Subject: Re: Default argument values for blocks

Ara.T.Howard a �crit :
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, Yukihiro Matsumoto 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.
> 
> 
> but
> 
>   method bool ? 42 : (0b101010) { "block" }
> 
> is valid now.

Why would it be?

method bool ? 42 : :(0b101010) { "block" }

> 
> ':' is nice on the eyes though.  maybe '::'
> 


-- 
Lionel Thiry

Personal web site: http://users.skynet.be/lthiry/