From: dblack@... Date: 2006-01-04T02:26:15+09:00 Subject: Re: Implicit block parameter? Hi -- On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Ross Bamford wrote: > On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 13:52:03 -0000, Devin Mullins > wrote: > >> dblack@wobblini.net wrote: > > (David, can't see your message in the newsgroup, so I'll reply with this one) > >> >>> Hi -- >>> On Tue, 3 Jan 2006, Ross Bamford wrote: >>> >>>> Wicked :) I can confirm that seems to work in 1.8 (though I had to make >>>> one change manually because the source is slightly different of course). >>>> I guessed it'd be something that would be reasonably easy (when you know >>>> how ;)) from the C side. >>>> >>>> FWIW +1 for inclusion in a future Ruby. >>> >>> You can submit it as an RCR if you wish, at http://www.rcrchive.net. >>> (I'll vote "Strongly opposed", but don't let that stop you :-) >> > > Hmm, I might put together a bit of a proposal and do that. I hope you'll > comment when you vote no, I'd be interested in your perspective on this :) I don't like it. I've never felt there was a problem to solve in this area, since it's so easy to specify an argument list. Having a magic variable ("it" or $_ or whatever) seems like a step backwards, in terms of clarity and consistency. I can't come up with a technical argument against it, since obviously it can be done (as witness Perl and other languages). It just strikes me as needless, and very afterthought-like (in the sense that the fact that blocks have named arguments always seemed to me to be what happens *instead* of $_/it and @_ and so forth). David -- David A. Black dblack@wobblini.net "Ruby for Rails", from Manning Publications, coming April 2006! http://www.manning.com/books/black