[#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:16281] Re: Strange idea... exporting from a scope

From: Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...>
Date: 2001-06-06 19:16:26 UTC
List: ruby-talk #16281
On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, Dave Thomas wrote:
> matz@zetabits.com (Yukihiro Matsumoto) writes:
> > Non shadowing, flat local variable scoping, that it tries to emulate
> > is, in my opinion, not dirty at all.  The dirty part lies in
> > flatness depending on context, to achieve compatibility.

The chief cause of problems is solutions.  Especially solutions to
problems that don't exist in the first place. I haven't seen any good
reasons to change the way things are right now.

> Matz's approach, if for no other reason than the current scheme of
> having to assign to a variable outside a block if you want to export
> that variable from the block is ugly.

See [ruby-talk:5655] about ugly things and being lazy. In case you wonder,
that post is not in favour of any particular feature, but a post against
bad arguments.

Besides, can you tell me what is the value of a variable exported from a
block that's never executed? say you have a #each that is executed zero
times...

> You can write Ruby as you'd write Perl, and you can write Ruby as you'd
> write Smalltalk. 

Just like Ben, I write Perl in a style quite indistinguishable from
SmallTalk and Ruby.

> same time it's really the first time that the Ruby language puts that
> kind of constraint on programming style. Do we want Ruby to make it hard
> to write programs in a certain (dubious) style? 

This is a non-issue. You just shouldn't take into account how much you can
alienate bad programmers just for being bad. What you should take into
account is that they won't feel alienated, and that you'll end up
alienating yourself by maintaining such code.

Now this is for *your* definition of bad. I write such "bad" code, I
also write code that you'd consider "good", and I also write code which 
generates new methods and classes by itself.

Whatever. I don't see the point of changing scoping of any kind of blocks
in Ruby, be that {...} blocks, if...then...end, blocks; and I don't see
the point of adding a new kind of "more local" blocks. I think there are
much better things to do.

matju

In This Thread