[#5218] Ruby Book Eng tl, ch1 question — Jon Babcock <jon@...>

13 messages 2000/10/02

[#5404] Object.foo, setters and so on — "Hal E. Fulton" <hal9000@...>

OK, here is what I think I know.

14 messages 2000/10/11

[#5425] Ruby Book Eng. tl, 9.8.11 -- seishitsu ? — Jon Babcock <jon@...>

18 messages 2000/10/11
[#5427] RE: Ruby Book Eng. tl, 9.8.11 -- seishitsu ? — OZAWA -Crouton- Sakuro <crouton@...> 2000/10/11

At Thu, 12 Oct 2000 03:49:46 +0900,

[#5429] Re: Ruby Book Eng. tl, 9.8.11 -- seishitsu ? — Jon Babcock <jon@...> 2000/10/11

Thanks for the input.

[#5432] Re: Ruby Book Eng. tl, 9.8.11 -- seishitsu ? — Yasushi Shoji <yashi@...> 2000/10/11

At Thu, 12 Oct 2000 04:53:41 +0900,

[#5516] Re: Some newbye question — ts <decoux@...>

>>>>> "D" == Davide Marchignoli <marchign@di.unipi.it> writes:

80 messages 2000/10/13
[#5531] Re: Some newbye question — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2000/10/14

Hi,

[#5544] Re: Some newbye question — Davide Marchignoli <marchign@...> 2000/10/15

On Sat, 14 Oct 2000, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#5576] Re: local variables (nested, in-block, parameters, etc.) — Dave Thomas <Dave@...> 2000/10/16

matz@zetabits.com (Yukihiro Matsumoto) writes:

[#5617] Re: local variables (nested, in-block, parameters, etc.) — "Brian F. Feldman" <green@...> 2000/10/16

Dave Thomas <Dave@thomases.com> wrote:

[#5705] Dynamic languages, SWOT ? — Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@...>

There has been discussion on this list/group from time to time about

16 messages 2000/10/20
[#5712] Re: Dynamic languages, SWOT ? — Charles Hixson <charleshixsn@...> 2000/10/20

Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng wrote:

[#5882] [RFC] Towards a new synchronisation primitive — hipster <hipster@...4all.nl>

Hello fellow rubyists,

21 messages 2000/10/26

[ruby-talk:5483] Re: Some newbye question

From: Davide Marchignoli <marchign@...>
Date: 2000-10-12 22:42:50 UTC
List: ruby-talk #5483

On Fri, 13 Oct 2000, Dave Thomas wrote:

> Davide Marchignoli <marchign@di.unipi.it> writes:
> 
> > Which is the rationale of the fact that block variables are non-binding
> > if some variable with the same name already exists ? Isn't it confusing?
> 
> It can be confusing, but it's also a benefit. It allows blocks to be
> used as closures, retaining access to local scope even if that scope
> has gone out of context.
> 
>    def example
>      a = 99
>      return proc { |n| n + a }
>    end
> 
>    x = example
>    x.call(2)    # => 101
> 

Probably my question was not clear, I was not talking about a. For sure,
if one wants to mantain lexical scoping (and so we also get closures) a
has to be bound to the variable created within procedure example.

My question was about variable n, the block does not necessarly introduces
a fresh variable, instead it (possibly) binds it to an already existing
variable. IMHO this treatement of variables occurring as argument of
blocks is unrelated to the creation of closures.

Thanks,
					Davide


In This Thread