[#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:5537] Re: Some newbye question

From: "Guy N. Hurst" <gnhurst@...>
Date: 2000-10-14 18:51:44 UTC
List: ruby-talk #5537
Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> In message "[ruby-talk:5516] Re: Some newbye question"
>     on 00/10/14, ts <decoux@moulon.inra.fr> writes:
> ...
> |>   (a) I don't like variable overriding, especially in declaration-less
> |>       language like Ruby.
> |>
> |>   (b) since blocks were introduced for iteration originally, I want
> |>       any assignables can be block parameters.
> 
> 3 possible solution in my mind for the future:
> 
>   (1) local variables in the block parameters be valid only in the
>       surrounding block.  I think Davide proposed this one.  This
>       violates (a), and introduces incompatibility (small?).  This is
>       not perfect since the problem remains for non parameter local
>       variables.
> 

I'm not an expert in this realm, but it seems to me that since this 
is a scope issue, another scope designation is called for. 
And to avoid proliferation of scope symbols, an existing one could 
probably be used, such as the '@' used in objects and classes. 
Or if there are conflicts, maybe '%' would be better.
 
I personally think it would be worth it to eliminate the surprise
element that is in these multiple local scopes inside blocks etc.

It is also in keeping with the ruby way of designating scope using
a prepended symbol of some kind.

Does something like this a good idea to anyone else?  
Is it reasonably doable?


Guy N. Hurst

-- 
HurstLinks Web Development    http://www.hurstlinks.com/
Norfolk, VA - (757)623-9688
PHP/MySQL - Ruby/Perl - HTML/Javascript

In This Thread