[#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:5485] Re: Some newbye question

From: matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
Date: 2000-10-12 23:12:31 UTC
List: ruby-talk #5485
Hi,

In message "[ruby-talk:5483] Re: Some newbye question"
    on 00/10/13, Davide Marchignoli <marchign@di.unipi.it> writes:

|>    def example
|>      a = 99
|>      return proc { |n| n + a }
|>    end
|> 
|>    x = example
|>    x.call(2)    # => 101

|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.

It is necessary.  For example

  fact = proc{|n|
    n == 0 ? 1 : fact.call(n-1)*n
  }
  p fact.call(4)

would return 0 if the block does not introduce a new scope.
But I still want to remove the stumble stone like:

  ary.each do |x|
    if cond?(x)
      break
    end
  end
  found = x  # error; x is not defined here.

in the future, probably Ruby 2.0/3.0 or so.

							matz.

In This Thread