From: Robert Dober <robert.dober@...>
Date: 2006-09-22T22:19:21+09:00
Subject: Re: proc and lambda

------=_Part_28369_30097144.1158931158224
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 9/22/06, ts <decoux@moulon.inra.fr> wrote:
>
> >>>>> "S" =3D=3D Sourav  <soura.jagat@gmail.com> writes:
>
> S> Provided of course, I know the differences between Proc.new and lambda
> S> ~ both proc and lambda seems to behave the way, whereas, Proc.new
> S> behaves slightly differently.
>
> Well, if you think that proc and lambda behave the same, you'll have a
> surprise one day :-)
>
> moulon% ./ruby -ve 'proc { break }.call'
> ruby 1.9.0 (2006-09-21) [i686-linux]
> -e:1: break from proc-closure (LocalJumpError)
>         from -e:1:in `Proc#call'
>         from -e:1
> moulon%
>
> moulon% ./ruby -ve 'lambda { break }.call'
> ruby 1.9.0 (2006-09-21) [i686-linux]
> moulon%


which means , if I remember correctly:
1.8 Proc.new !=3D proc, proc =3D=3D lambda
1.9 Proc.new =3D=3D proc,  proc!=3Dlambda
right?

Robert

Guy Decoux
>
>


--=20
Deux choses sont infinies : l'univers et la b=EAtise humaine ; en ce qui
concerne l'univers, je n'en ai pas acquis la certitude absolue.

- Albert Einstein

------=_Part_28369_30097144.1158931158224--