[#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:16120] Re: Block arguments vs method arguments

From: matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
Date: 2001-06-01 06:31:40 UTC
List: ruby-talk #16120
Hi,

In message "[ruby-talk:16096] Re: Block arguments vs method arguments"
    on 01/06/01, Sean Russell <ser@germane-software.com> writes:

|1) There are better (IMHO) solutions for the problem.  I, personally, liked 
|the earlier suggestion of defining scope with { |:var| ... }, and I'm not 
|sure whatever happened to this recommendation.

I don't think it's better, because

 (a) it's not compatible.

     depending on how : works, but if variables without : work as they
     are now, it's still error prone.  And if you choose the way Hal
     wants in [ruby-talk:16118], it will break too many programs.

 (b) it's orthogonal, but makes things complex.

     it's my personal observation.

I don't mean "<...>" is the best.  It's uglier.  But it's compatible
and easy-to-use.

So, in conclusion, what I want is something:

 (1) fairly compatible; at least 99.5% of current Ruby programs should
     run unchanged.  Considering number of Ruby programs all over the
     world, 0.5% might be too big.

 (2) natural; what we want is NOT orthogonality, but naturalness.
     From my observation, block parameters has two major roles,
     iteration variables and Proc's formal arguments.  Current
     behavior focuses too much on the former.  We'd better rescue the
     latter too.  That's why I'm thinking of "<...>", which gives
     distinct notation for each major role.  Ithink we don't need to
     mix these two roles.

 (3) good looking; as long as it satisfies the above two.

"<...>" satisfies the first two.  There might be better idea.
I'm not in a hurry, alway seeking better idea.

							matz.

In This Thread