From: Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...>
Date: 2005-10-18T23:34:21+09:00
Subject: Re: Anonymous methods, blocks etc. (Cont. 'default block params')

On 10/18/05, Sean O'Halpin <sean.ohalpin@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/15/05, ES <ruby-ml@magical-cat.org> wrote:
>>  2. Blocks/Procs versus anonymous methods. Should these be actually
>>  *different*
> Short answer - yes. An anonymous function would mean you're not
> carrying around a whole heap of baggage when no closure is required
> and gives you a clean scope to help prevent accidental aliasing
> errors.

Except that Matz still plans on making anonymous functions have closure
capabilities. This is why, after Dave Thomas suggested:

  anon = def(x = 5)
    # implementation of anon
  end

I then suggested:

  anon = lambda(x = 5)
    # implementation of anon
  end

To me, this is clearer than any of the other options that have been so
far suggested for anonymous functions. I don't know that I'll be using
anonymous functions for most of what I do in Ruby, but I can see the
point of them and how they *are* subtly different than blocks. I just
don't particularly care for the proposed syntax:

  anon = ->(x = 5) { ... }

-austin
--
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com
               * Alternate: austin@halostatue.ca