From: dblack@...
Date: 2007-02-04T22:25:47+09:00
Subject: Re: Proc vs lambda vs proc

Hi --

On Sun, 4 Feb 2007, Robert Klemme wrote:

> On 04.02.2007 12:28, Kalman Noel wrote:
>> Robert Klemme:
>>> On 04.02.2007 04:55, Minkoo Seo wrote:
>>>> I got a question on Proc.new and lambda { ... }. AFAIK, there's two
>>>> differences between Proc.new(=proc) and lambda.
>>> I think you have it slightly wrong: "proc" and "lambda" are aliases while 
>>> "Proc.new" works different.
>> 
>> This is true for Ruby 1.8, but was changed in Ruby 1.9.  The decision was
>> taken because proc and Proc.new are lexically too similar to have different
>> meanings, IIRC.
>
> Thanks for the heads up!  Me not being an early adopter tested with 1.8 only. 
> At least I don't have to change my habit of using "lambda". :-)

Originally, I think the decision was to deprecate 'proc' entirely --
which would be fine with me, though as long as it's not different from
Proc.new that's OK too.


David

-- 
Q. What is THE Ruby book for Rails developers?
A. RUBY FOR RAILS by David A. Black (http://www.manning.com/black)
    (See what readers are saying!  http://www.rubypal.com/r4rrevs.pdf)
Q. Where can I get Ruby/Rails on-site training, consulting, coaching?
A. Ruby Power and Light, LLC (http://www.rubypal.com)