From: dblack@...
Date: 2006-08-02T10:01:11+09:00
Subject: Re: I thought this was the one that worked?

Hi --

On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, Chad Perrin wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 05:19:38AM +0900, Jacob Fugal wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This is where we get into what David Black described as hair
>>>> splitting. Lets move away from each, and to a set of more general
>>>> methods:
>>>
>>> Let's not.  Hair splitting actually came up in reference to the
>>> distinction between the first two examples, and not in reference to the
>>> third.
>>
>> Actually, if you go back and read David's post [ruby-talk:205331],
>> which is the first reference to hair splitting in this thread, you'll
>> see that he clearly believes both of the first two examples to be
>> closures. When he mentions hair splitting, it's directly in relation
>> to the third form -- an unconverted (yielded to) block.
>
> You were right, up to the point where you said "When he mentions hair
> splitting".  The problem at that point that prompted him to mention hair
> splitting was the fact that I was balking at defining that second
> example as a "closure".

No, I meant that my comments about whether blocks were closures was
hair-splitting.  (Maybe the fact that I introduced the comments that
way looked like I was actually summing up what came before, but the
hair-splitting pronouncement ended with a colon :-)


David

-- 
http://www.rubypowerandlight.com => Ruby/Rails training & consultancy
   ----> SEE SPECIAL DEAL FOR RUBY/RAILS USERS GROUPS! <-----
http://dablog.rubypal.com        => D[avid ]A[. ]B[lack's][ Web]log
http://www.manning.com/black     => book, Ruby for Rails
http://www.rubycentral.org       => Ruby Central, Inc.