[#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:5543] Re: Some newbye question

From: Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
Date: 2000-10-15 12:29:54 UTC
List: ruby-talk #5543
matz@zetabits.com (Yukihiro Matsumoto) writes:

> 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.

If I had a vote, I'd go for this one, as it seems cleanest. 

Non-parameter variables are fine as they are, as they make closures
possible.

Parameters are different, though. A parameter is not a true variable
per-se, but instead is a placeholder for one. The fact that a
parameter shares a name with another variable in the enclosing scope
is just a coincidence.


I guess an alternative would be to make _all_ variables and parameters 
local to the block, and then introduce some kind of operator which
says "scope this variable outside the block" so that closures would
work. This has the benefit of making scope-sharing explicit, but is
would break a whole heap of code.


Regards


Dave

In This Thread