[#4766] Wiki — "Glen Stampoultzis" <trinexus@...>

21 messages 2000/09/04
[#4768] RE: Wiki — "NAKAMURA, Hiroshi" <nahi@...> 2000/09/04

Hi, Glen,

[#4783] Re: Wiki — Masatoshi SEKI <m_seki@...> 2000/09/04

[#4785] Re: Wiki — "NAKAMURA, Hiroshi" <nakahiro@...> 2000/09/05

Howdy,

[#4883] Re-binding a block — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>

16 messages 2000/09/12

[#4930] Perl 6 rumblings -- RFC 225 (v1) Data: Superpositions — Conrad Schneiker <schneik@...>

Hi,

11 messages 2000/09/15

[#4936] Ruby Book Eng. translation editor's questions — Jon Babcock <jon@...>

20 messages 2000/09/16

[#5045] Proposal: Add constants to Math — Robert Feldt <feldt@...>

15 messages 2000/09/21

[#5077] Crazy idea? infix method calls — hal9000@...

This is a generalization of the "in" operator idea which I

17 messages 2000/09/22

[#5157] Compile Problem with 1.6.1 — Scott Billings <aerogems@...>

When I try to compile Ruby 1.6.1, I get the following error:

15 messages 2000/09/27

[ruby-talk:4911] Re: Re-binding a block

From: matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
Date: 2000-09-12 21:04:49 UTC
List: ruby-talk #4911
Hi,

In message "[ruby-talk:4901] Re: Re-binding a block"
    on 00/09/13, Dave Thomas <Dave@thomases.com> writes:

|I was wondering again about instance_eval. Would there be a problem
|with
|
|    instance_eval(1,2,3) { |a, b, c|  # ... }
|
|where parameters get passed in to the block?

Negative.  I don't feel it as `instance_eval'.
It's a 'self-swapping-block-invocater-with-arguments'.  Giving too
many roles to a name must be a source of confusion.

I'm not going to object if a proper name is given to the function,
preferably implemented in extension.

							matz.

In This Thread

Prev Next