From: Trans <transfire@...>
Date: 2005-10-20T14:21:59+09:00
Subject: Anonymous methods, blocks etc. (Cont. 'default block params')


Eric Mahurin wrote:
> --- Trans <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Austin Ziegler wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm not wanting to extrapolate. Consider me the
> > conservative here,
> > > Trans. Convince me that this is really useful and
> > important.
> >
> > It's all relative Austin. How *really useful and important*
> > is
> > anything? Most things can be done in some other way. But this
> > much is
> > certain, there are things you CAN'T do b/c of this --or at
> > least not
> > wihtout jumping through some magical hoops like defining a
> > method
> > grabing the UnboundMethod, converting to_proc and undefining
> > the method
> > (which I have done). But as to the example I was trying to
> > show here...
> > here's something a little bit more real-to-life, though still
> > off the
> > top of my head.
> >
> >   dir = File.dirname(__FILE__)
> >
> >   m = module.new do
> >
> >     make_dir_method = lambda { |which, path|
> >       class_eval {
> >         define_method( "#{which}dir" ) { |name|
> >           dir = File.dirname(path)
> >           name = File.basename(path)
> >           File.join(dir,which,name)
> >         }
> >       }
> >     }
> >
> >     make_dir_method('lib',dir)
> >     make_dir_method('var',dir)
> >     make_dir_method('bin',dir)
> >
> >   end
>
> Trans, I thought the discussion was the need for a non-closure
> block/lambda.  The above has very little to do with closure
> blocks/lambdas vs. non-closure blocks/lambdas.  All you're
> asking for in the above is for a ()-like operator that
> correlates to #call.  I too would like that especially when the
> lambda takes a block (only in v1.9).  When it doesn't take a
> block, you can easily get similar syntax by using the []
> operator on a Proc:

No no. That was actually just a mistype (well it works in an old 1.9
version, but) it's not the point at all.

Sorry,
T.