[#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:16145] Re: Block arguments vs method arguments

From: Sean Russell <ser@...>
Date: 2001-06-01 17:37:44 UTC
List: ruby-talk #16145
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Je jxauxdo 31 Majo 2001 23:31, vi skribis:
> 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.

Yes.  The only way this would be a Good Thing would be if the scoping rules 
of |...| were changed, potentially breaking old code.  I still think that

	{ | localvar, :upscopevar | }

would be the best syntax, even though it might break old code.  You don't 
even have to use ':'; I don't care if the symbol is '^' or something else.

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

I don't think that the scoping rule mentioned above would be complex; it 
would be complex if ':var' were local scope and 'var' were parent scope.  I 
actually think that using 

	{ | local, :up | }

is less complex than

	{ | up | < local > }

I just really, really, really dislike the direction this second example leads 
us in.

>  (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.

Unfortunately, I think the cleanest solution is to break compatibility.  
Failing that, don't solve the problem.  Leave things the way they are.  
That's my vote.

>  (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.

Perhaps you are right.  I expect that, once you set things up so that you 
can't mix the roles, people will begin complaining about needing to.

=== SER   Deutsch|Esperanto|Francaise|Linux|Java|Ruby|Aikido|Dirigibles|GPG
=== http://www.germane-software.com/~ser  jabber.com:ser  ICQ:83578737
"What are politicians going to tell people when the Constitution is gone 
 and we still have a drug problem?" -- William Simpson, A.C.L.U. 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE7F9LMP0KxygnleI8RAtmsAJ96OrTKIVmlbeUTSs5RfTTpMMf4ZQCgjydl
neUN5CSldJbruMK6l4a+wr0=
=BPsk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

In This Thread