From: David Alan Black <dblack@...>
Date: 2002-01-01T05:28:03+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:29890] Re: Proc.class vs yield

Hello --

On Tue, 1 Jan 2002, Joel VanderWerf wrote:

> > > There is still some room to overload {} a bit more. The syntax
> > >
> > >   some_method {|x| x+1} {|y| y-1}
> > >
> > > has no meaning currently--it's a parse error. Could this syntax be given
> > > a meaning so that
> > >
> > >   def some_method(&b1, &b2)
> > >   end
> > >
> > > allowed the method to use both blocks?
> >
> > What would yield do?
>
> Since you're explicitly converting each block to a proc, you don't need
> yield in this case. Maybe yield would look for a third, unobjectified,
> block?

It's not that one *needs* yield, but that one *wants* it :-)

[...]

> In Tcl, { ... } denotes a string without interpolation, like '...' in
> Ruby. So if you want to define a C-style for-loop in Ruby, you could,
> but it would look like:
>
>   for {$x = 0} {$x < 100} {$x += 1} {
>     puts $x
>   }

I'm afraid I don't get that example at all.  But in any case, I'm
fonder of Ruby-style for-loops than C-style for loops in Ruby :-)  Or
iterating over ranges, or whatever.


David

-- 
David Alan Black
home: dblack@candle.superlink.net
work: blackdav@shu.edu
Web:  http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav