From: Daniel Nugent <nugend@...>
Date: 2006-02-23T13:21:32+09:00
Subject: Re: [ANN] lazy.rb 0.9.5 -- transparent futures!

Unlikely.  The variables passed into the promise would still have
their references to the outside.  You get exactly the same effect as
capturing the variables in a closure and in fact, the given examples
are kinda contrived, it would make more sense to assign CUSTOMERS as a
local variable inside of the promise block, because then it can't be
affected outside of the closure.

However, currently, there IS a block parameter (that of the promise
itself, something to do with circular programming, which sounds
intriguing, but I have hella no idea what it means [PLEASE SEND
LINKS]), but it doesn't seem like you'd use it in most cases.

If you wanted something like, I dunno, currying a promise, you could
just wrap it in a lambda.

On 2/22/06, Shashank Date <shanko_date@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Daniel Nugent <nugend@gmail.com> wrote:    table_name = "CUSTOMERS"
> x = promise {table_name.dup}
> table_name = "MONKEYS"
> puts x
> =>"CUSTOMERS"
>
> Would avoid the problem. Though it's good to point out that you
> likely want to avoid changing the state of any variable that's
> captured by a promise closure (unless of course you plan on exploiting
> just that).
>
>
>
>   All this being said, is there any merit in the idea of passing block parameters? I was toying with it briefly and decided to give it a shot on a whim. Will try and come up with a more convincing answer.
>
>   Thanks for all your inputs.
>   -- shanko
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Brings words and photos together (easily) with
>  PhotoMail  - it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail.
>


--
-Dan Nugent