From: Greg Weeks <greg.weeks@...>
Date: 2007-11-15T10:28:16+09:00
Subject: "&prock", not "&block"

In all of the code below, "prock" by itself is always a proc, while the
combination "&prock" is always a block:

    def my_proc &prock    # accepts a block
      prock               # returns a proc
    end

    prock = my_proc { p "Hello, world" }

    prock.call

    def doit &prock  # param is redundant, but illustrative
      yield             # yields to &prock, a block
    end

    doit &prock         # same as 'doit { p "Hello, world" }'

So, it seems to me that "prock" above is distinctly clearer than
"block".  ("proc" would be better still, but it's taken.)

My only problem with "prock" is that my eye tends to scan it as p-rock
instead of the desired proc-k.  But it still seems better than "block".
Any other ideas?  "proce" perhaps?  "procc"?
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.