From: Eric Mahurin <eric_mahurin@...>
Date: 2005-10-20T22:26:44+09:00
Subject: Re: Anonymous methods, blocks etc. (Cont. 'default block params')

--- Trans <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> 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.

Then what was your point of the above code?  All 3 of the
blocks above need to be closures.  The inner block references
dir which is defined in the outer-most scope.  I thought you
were trying to convince the need of a non-closure.



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com