[#16113] Strange idea... exporting from a scope — "Hal E. Fulton" <hal9000@...>

Hello...

33 messages 2001/06/01

[#16364] Re: Garbage Collection? — Michael Davis <mdavis@...>

Windows 2000 and linux (RedHat 6.2). I have run these tests on both OSs.

12 messages 2001/06/09

[#16400] Symbolic Computation III — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...>

14 messages 2001/06/11

[#16502] Playing with Ruby Syntax (was: Initial thoughts about Ruby From a Smalltalk Programmer) — jweirich@...

Michael> Hi Everyone, I have to say I'm utterly fascinated by Ruby

9 messages 2001/06/15

[#16661] Problem running irb with Ruby 1.6.4 under FreeBSD 4.0 — Bob Alexander <balexander@...>

I've installed Ruby 1.6.4 on a FreeBSD 4.0 machine, and get the

11 messages 2001/06/20

[#16686] opening db files made by apache dbmmanage — Fritz Heinrichmeyer <fritz.heinrichmeyer@...>

14 messages 2001/06/21

[#16801] rb_define_class() vs Class.new() — Kero van Gelder <kero@...4050.upc-d.chello.nl>

Hi,

18 messages 2001/06/23
[#16802] Re: rb_define_class() vs Class.new() — ts <decoux@...> 2001/06/23

>>>>> "K" == Kero van Gelder <kero@d4050.upc-d.chello.nl> writes:

[#16841] RE: national characters is strings — "Aleksei Guzev" <aleksei.guzev@...>

Next week I'll try to rebuild Ruby with Unicode strings. But it would be

15 messages 2001/06/25
[#16842] Re: national characters is strings — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2001/06/25

Hi,

[#16843] Re: national characters is strings — "Aleksei Guzev" <aleksei.guzev@...> 2001/06/25

That's good enough. But I'm afraid this could ( not would ) cause string

[#16868] Something strange with Ruby's inheritance mechanism — Eric Jacoboni <jaco@...>

As Ruby beginner, i try some "canonical" OO scripts. Doing so, I've

14 messages 2001/06/25
[#16873] RE: Something strange with Ruby's inheritance mechanism — "Aleksei Guzev" <aleksei.guzev@...> 2001/06/26

[#16879] Re: Something strange with Ruby's inheritance mechanism — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2001/06/26

On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Aleksei Guzev wrote:

[#16869] Something strange with Ruby's inheritance mechanism — Eric Jacoboni <jaco@...>

As Ruby beginner, i try some "canonical" OO scripts. Doing so, I've

12 messages 2001/06/25

[#16881] — "Aleksei Guzev" <aleksei.guzev@...>

32 messages 2001/06/26
[#16916] Re: Method overloading (option) Was: Re: — "Wayne Blair" <wayne.blair@...> 2001/06/26

[#16920] Re: Method overloading (option) Was: Re: — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2001/06/26

Hi,

[#16888] finalizers, destructors and whatnot — "David Leal" <david@...>

Hi all,

16 messages 2001/06/26

[#17037] keeping an Exception object alive — David Alan Black <dblack@...>

Hello --

19 messages 2001/06/28
[#17055] Re: keeping an Exception object alive — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2001/06/29

Hi,

[#17066] RCR: Exception methods (was: Re: Re: keeping an Exception object alive) — David Alan Black <dblack@...> 2001/06/29

Hello --

[#17076] Re: RCR: Exception methods (was: Re: Re: keeping an Exception object alive) — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2001/06/29

Hi,

[#17079] Re: RCR: Exception methods (was: Re: Re: keeping an Exception object alive) — David Alan Black <dblack@...> 2001/06/29

Hello --

[#17138] Re: RCR: Exception methods (was: Re: Re: keeping an Exception object alive) — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2001/07/02

Hi,

[#17141] Re: RCR: Exception methods (was: Re: Re: keeping an Exception object alive) — David Alan Black <dblack@...> 2001/07/02

Hello --

[#17142] Re: RCR: Exception methods (was: Re: Re: keeping an Exception object alive) — ts <decoux@...> 2001/07/02

>>>>> "D" == David Alan Black <dblack@candle.superlink.net> writes:

[ruby-talk:16105] Re: Block arguments vs method arguments

From: "Hal E. Fulton" <hal9000@...>
Date: 2001-06-01 01:19:27 UTC
List: ruby-talk #16105
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Guillaume Cottenceau <gc@mandrakesoft.com>
To: ruby-talk ML <ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 1:38 PM
Subject: [ruby-talk:16090] Re: Block arguments vs method arguments


> Hey! -- If I count right, 4 persons (Sean Russell, Hal E. Fulton, Dan
> Moniz and Mirian Crzig Lennox) all bold out that for cosmetic reasons or
> fear of change, they don't like the <..> syntax. Wait, no flame but isn't
> there reasons more important than that?
> 
> We should underline for example that the <..> thingy fixing up the
> problems with local variables not being local is a great step forward for
> Ruby!

True, but let's improve the semantics without injecting too much noise
into the language.

"If you think notation doesn't matter, try doing long division in 
Roman numerals."

It's amazing how "visually clean" Ruby is. If we had a required semicolon
at the end of a statement, line continuation would be more intuitive; but
it isn't worth it! The eyeball trips over the semicolons.

The <> thing would be an "Evelyn Wood speed bump" for me (and some
others, I'll bet).

And suppose you have fiv variables (passed in order, as with an iterator)
and the even numbered ones need this special syntax:

   my_method  { |a| <b> |c| <d> |e|   do_some_stuff() }

Oh, how lovely.

Hal



In This Thread