[#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:16137] Re: Block arguments vs method arguments

From: "Guy N. Hurst" <gnhurst@...>
Date: 2001-06-01 14:45:18 UTC
List: ruby-talk #16137
Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
...
>      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.

It seems to me that this sheds new light on the problem, and
shows us the direction this will ultimately take.  If this is
the way it has to be -- giving a distinct place for each role,
then I see the "<...>" making a lot more sense. But, I have
two alternate ideas for depicting them

I) "(....)" notation (already mentioned)
   This is 'soft' and looks like a method parameter list.
   Downside is context complications.

II) "...|...|" notation (has this been mentioned?)
   This utilizes smalltalk's [x,y| .... ] notation, where such
   vars are private to the block.
   This would allow familiar |a,b,c| iterator notation.
   I think this will be the most flexible, concise, and familiar.

ex. for II

1)  proc{x,y|a,b,c| ..... }

  - x and y block-local
  - a,b,c are as usual (probably with new auto-export feature by then)

2)  proc{x,y| .... }
  
  - x and y block-local
   
3)  proc{|a,b,c| .... }

  - a,b,c as usual, etc.

These would allow multi-line versions:
proc{x,y
  |a,b,c|
  ....
}

proc{
  x,y|a,b,c|
  ....
}

proc{
  x,y
  |a,b,c|
  ....
}

proc{ 
  x,y|
  ....
}

proc{
  x,y
  ||
  .... 
}

etc.

And we can always say it was inspired by smalltalk ;-)


The only question remaining in my mind is whether this distinction
means that the assignments will act separately or not.  For example,
will #call use the formal block-local vars while #yield uses the
flat-scoped iterator parameters?

And should we allow this:

proc{ x|x| .... }

which could make a block-local variable available also as
an iterator parameter. Or should it raise an exception?


Guy N. Hurst


-- 
HurstLinks Web Development    http://www.hurstlinks.com/
Norfolk, VA  23510            (757)623-9688 FAX 623-0433
PHP/MySQL - Ruby/Perl - HTML/Javascript

In This Thread