From: "Guy N. Hurst" Date: 2000-10-15T03:51:44+09:00 Subject: [ruby-talk:5537] Re: Some newbye question Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote: > > Hi, > > In message "[ruby-talk:5516] Re: Some newbye question" > on 00/10/14, ts 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