From: Sean O'Halpin Date: 2005-10-19T11:39:30+09:00 Subject: Re: Anonymous methods, blocks etc. (Cont. 'default block params') On 10/19/05, Austin Ziegler wrote: > On 10/18/05, Sean O'Halpin wrote: > > On 10/18/05, Eric Mahurin wrote: > > > But, I kind of still > > > wish we had a syntax where the variables in a block/lambda were > > > local (non-closure) by default. > > Maybe if we say it often enough? ;) > > Doubtful. I think to convince matz, real examples would need to be > presented (as an RCR!) as to why this is necessary. IANM, but IMO > theoretical need and wish ain't sufficient. > > -austin > -- > Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com > * Alternate: austin@halostatue.ca Hi, I ~was~ being ironic (hence the ;) > Doubtful. I think to convince matz, real examples would need to be > presented (as an RCR!) as to why this is necessary. Good point. I don't think it would be hard to get examples. > IANM, but IMO > theoretical need and wish ain't sufficient. This is no theoretical need - see the recent thread on Rails developer mode reloading woes for a real world example of how badly managed closures can cripple an application. Also, it would be interesting to cook up an implementation to see if there is a performance gain (not the primary motivation however). The problem would be in getting a decent syntax! I understand your point however - it's all too easy to just think up something you think you might like to have without any real need. Regards, Sean