From: Brian Candler <b.candler@...>
Date: 2011-03-28T17:55:08+09:00
Subject: Re: How to get the value of a singleton class?

Robert Dober wrote in post #989410:
> On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Aaron D. Gifford <astounding@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 4:44 AM, Robert Dober <robert.dober@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> That just seems right.
>
> I do not really have a problem with this. However I feel that it is
> really not for the language to decide if I want to do this or not. The
> more restrictive way does not give me the opportunity to use closures
> easily in my classes while it would still allow *not* to use them. BTW
> I am quite convinced that this
> is not a design choice

I think it *is* a design choice, because of the local variable/method 
ambiguity.

If "class" and "def" did not start a new scope, then a bareword like "x" 
*might* be a local variable within a closure. It would be extremely 
difficult to tell; you'd have to read the entire program source code 
back to the beginning of the file (assuming that 'load' and 'require' 
started a new scope, otherwise it would be completely impossible).

With the current rules, given some code like

   ... lots of previous stuff
   def foo
     x
   end

you can tell by inspection of method foo alone that x *must* be a method 
call within foo; it's definitely not a local variable.

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.