From: Logan Capaldo <logancapaldo@...>
Date: 2006-08-01T07:05:31+09:00
Subject: Re: I thought this was the one that worked?


On Jul 31, 2006, at 5:13 PM, Chad Perrin wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 04:57:48AM +0900, Logan Capaldo wrote:
>>
>> All these examples are lexical scoping. Ruby doesn't really have
>> dynamic scoping although you can sort of abuse instance variables to
>> achieve similar effects.
>>
>> The difference is that blocks are closures, where def, class, and
>> module aren't.
>
> Wait . . . you mean that *all blocks* are automagically lexical
> closures, as though declared lexical variables within them have  
> gone out
> of scope?  I imagine I'm probably misunderstanding you, but if not,
> that's a pretty nifty bit of trickery.
>
I'm not sure I understand your question. All blocks (by blocks I mean  
do / end and { } ) are (lexically scoped) closures.




> -- 
> CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
> Ben Franklin: "As we enjoy great Advantages from the Inventions of
> others we should be glad of an Opportunity to serve others by any
> Invention of ours, and this we should do freely and generously."
>