From: Austin Ziegler Date: 2005-10-19T12:32:51+09:00 Subject: Re: Anonymous methods, blocks etc. (Cont. 'default block params') On 10/18/05, Sean O'Halpin wrote: > 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. > I ~was~ being ironic (hence the ;) I know. I still think it was worth a response. >> 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. Hmm. I think it will. But I encourage you and those interested in this to write an RCR for it. Who knows? It might be accepted. It probably won't be anything that affects me. >> 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! Hm. Is that necessarily a closure issue or an abuse of a particular feature in search of something else? I'm not going to pretend that I really understand the problem they were having, so ... it might be something that can be solved in other ways in Ruby 1.9. > 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. I'm glad you do. -austin -- Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com * Alternate: austin@halostatue.ca