From: Michael Lucas-Smith <s3225202@...>
Date: 2002-01-19T21:00:01+09:00
Subject: Re: Proc.class vs yield

TheSchof wrote:

> That's a slippery slope to smalltalk ;-).  I suppose you could if you were
> required to give an empty arglist like [|| ...] when there weren't any
> arguments so there would be no confusion with an Array literal.  But if you
> were going to change the language why not only allow one of the two currently
> allowed syntaxes for a block ({|| ...}, or do || ... end), and use the other to
> instantiate an actual Proc object (and I'm not necessarily advocating this, but
> it might add more visual distinction).  The best I can offer you is a band-aid,
> lambda instead of proc (a much nicer word don't you think?).
> 


writing lambda instead of proc makes it two characters uglier :) Yes.. 
much cooler word, very Lisp. But still not the solution I'm looking for. 
I think the real problem happened when {} was reused for another job 
other than hash for the anonymous block. I have another novel idea,.. 
instead of [] or {} .. what about "" ? .. or '' ?

Michael


> Alexander Schofield
> 
> Michael Lucas-Smith wrote:
> 
>>I see what you're saying. I suggest that perhaps it was a mistake to
>>re-use the same syntax between hash and block. Obviously that cannot be
>>fixed now, but perhaps [] can be used to represent a proc so that:
>>
>>proc { ... }
>>and:
>>[ ... ]
>>
>>mean the same thing.
>>
>>Michael
>>