From: Jacob Burkhart <igotimac@...>
Date: 2007-06-01T22:45:33+09:00
Subject: Re: Introducing the "it" keyword

> Of course, I might find the with:a(v+1) syntax more readable if it were
> used in a language where that sort of thing was normal.  It just looks
> un-Rubylike enough to me that it throws me off in a Ruby context.

The point of enabling something like with:a(v+1){ ... } in addition to
with(v+1){ |a| ...} is simply a proposal in answer to the original
proposition about 'it':
return it if |v+1| < 10

something like:

return it if with:it(v+1) < 10

return a if with:a(v+1) < 10

return a,b if ( with:a(v+1) + with:b(x*y) ) < 10


Where this:

return it if with:it(v+1) < 10

Would be translated by the interpreter into exactly the same thing as this:

with:it(v+1) do
   return it if it < 10
end

which is exactly the same thing as this:

with(v+1) do |it|
   return it if it < 10
end