From: ES <ruby-ml@...>
Date: 2005-10-14T12:01:19+09:00
Subject: Re: Default argument values for blocks

Trans wrote:
> 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.

I seem to recall this suggestion was presented on 2005.04.01.

>   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? :)

No syntax! :)

Damn, we could have *all* learned ANTLR by now.

> T.

E