From: MikkelFJ Date: 2002-10-09T08:10:46+09:00 Subject: Re: block vars (some theory) "Mauricio Fern�ndez" wrote in message news:20021008163621.GE10843@student.ei.uni-stuttgart.de... > This might sound wildly un-scientific, but I very much prefer matz's > cautious approach, where features are added carefully and bad style > (such as the example you give) is discouraged by the language, to keeping adding > feature after feature to Ruby until it becomes "interpreted Smalltalk + Perl > + CLU + Algol + Lisp + C++ + ??" This is very true - but I also think it is reasonable to discuss new features. Good design is about considering a lot of different options. Most are discarded but all contribute to illuminate the problem at hand. Often a more general solution can be found this way. I think it is not helpful to discourage suggestions to new Ruby features - especially because we know they are not going to be implemented lightly. That said, suggestions could be presented in one or a few mails. They need not take up 90% of the bandwidth. Mikkel