From: Trans <transfire@...>
Date: 2005-10-14T10:26:54+09:00
Subject: Re: Default argument values for blocks


David A. Black wrote:

> That's one of the things I don't like about it.  Just on a kind of
> visceral level, { ... } conveys a much greater sense of a "closure".

Yes, I felt that way as well. But I also sometimes feel like it's
(visually) lopsided.

  each {|x| ... }

> Actually, if we must have -> then it would be better to just make it
> look more like a method definition, but anonymous:
>
>    def x(a,b)
>      ...
>    end
>
>    -> (a,b)
>      ...
>    end

Hmmm, can that be done? That must cause possible ambiguities or why
would we not be using {(x,y)...} already? But then again I know we can
do

  def foo(x) do stuff ; end

So I'm not sure.

Matz had also suggested the possibility of ;; for end. Which with your
concept would give.

  each -> (x) puts x ;;

I think even uglier. Let's try this:

  each -> (x) puts x <-

Oh, yea now were getting somewhere. How about we sub '{' and '}' for
'->' and '<-'? Good idea? ;)

I'm being silly but the point is that you indrectly raise the fair
question of why not

  { (a,b) ... }

> and just forget about the {}.  ->(){} just requires too much visual
> parsing and explaining.

  ->(){} ?

Oh, you mean empty-block? :)

T.