From: Robert Klemme <shortcutter@...>
Date: 2008-09-02T20:11:09+09:00
Subject: Re: Request for Block local methods, and Proc syntax

2008/9/1 Patrick Li <patrickli_2001@hotmail.com>:
> The reason instance_eval shouldn't be used in that way is because it
> interferes with your scope in a very unintuitive way.
>
> For example, you can't do something like this:
>
> @source = "pic.gif"
> html do
>  image(@source)
> end
>
> You have to do something like this:
> source = @source
> html do
>  image(source)
> end

That's true.  I have to admit that I can't remember having seen this
as a problem - it's probably a matter of programming style.

> The reason, also, that I ask for a simpler syntax for procs, is so that
> we can eliminate the kludgy block argument syntax. I like Ruby, but I
> feel it's power is limited because of the complexity of it's syntax.

Umm, I have always thought of Ruby's syntax as clean and simple. :-)

You still have not explained how you would avoid the ambiguity with
your simple syntax...

> Smalltalk is *almost* like Ruby, except that it treats blocks (or
> closures as they call it) consistently, which makes it possible to write
> many control structures.

Well, you do not _have_ to use Ruby...  If I would constantly miss
features of another language X this would be the very moment when I'd
start considering using X instead of Ruby.  And if it happens only
from time to time I'd rather try to find a workable alternative vs.
changing the language.  My 0.02 EUR.

Kind regards

robert

-- 
use.inject do |as, often| as.you_can - without end