From: Alex Strasheim <astrashe@...>
Date: 2007-02-08T00:55:07+09:00
Subject: Re: Question about closure example on p. 56 of pickaxe book

On Feb 7, 8:56 am, "Phrogz" <g...@refinery.com> wrote:

> Michael answered the brunt of your question as I would have ("ignore
> the self"), but I wanted to answer the above question of yours.
>
> While methods in Ruby are pretty adamant about getting exactly the
> number of parameters you define (except when you explicitly provide
> default values or explicitly ask to collect any 'extra' values into an
> array), blocks are much more forgiving. See the following code:

[...]

Thanks very much for taking the time to type that out.  It's really
helpful.

> My own question: what rationale allows the one-argument Proc 'auto-
> splat' the extra arguments into an array, but the two-argument case
> does not? And what changes in 1.9 (besides 'proc' becoming another way
> of performing 'Proc.new' instead of 'lambda')?

I'll be curious to read what's said about that as well.