[#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:16171] Re: Block arguments vs method arguments

From: Albert Wagner <alwagner@...>
Date: 2001-06-02 17:49:32 UTC
List: ruby-talk #16171
> There're TWO closely related but different problems.
>
>   (a) The semantics of block parameters are defined by multiple
>       assignment.  

I don't know what this means.  That yield calls a block multiple times?

>       This is because they are originally iteration  variables.  
>       But they are sometimes used/expected like formal
>       arguments (e.g. name shadowing, default value, etc.).

But Isn't such use a violation of the defined intent of a block?  I always 
thought of a block as pure code with any/all input supplied by the receiver. 
Therefore the receiver dictates the contents of |...| to the sender.  
Essentially, the receiver offers a contract: 
(a) with ".each" he says "I am iterating over a sequence; I will give your 
block one object from the sequence at a time; in your block, you tell me what 
to do with this one item, |a|, 
(b) with ".sort" he says "I am sorting a collection of objects; I will give 
your block two objects at a time;  in your block, you tell me how you  want 
them ordered; here are the two objects |a b|.
>
>       Plus, |a| accepts any number of values, where |a,| takes only
>       one value (this too is caused by multiple assignment semantics).

I guess I don't understand this either.

>
>   (b) blocks introduce new local variable scope, i.e. a local variable
>       that appears first in a block is not available out of the
>       block.  This is confusing sometimes.

Seems straightforward to me.  Why is it confusing? Isn't the block just a 
piece of helper code for the receiver?  Does the sender expect to renegotiate 
the offered contract on the fly?

I suppose I am too new to Ruby to even be commenting.  But explaining my 
understanding of a thing and then being corrected by those that know better, 
is usefull to my understanding.

In This Thread