[#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:5545] Re: Some newbye question

From: ts <decoux@...>
Date: 2000-10-15 12:45:24 UTC
List: ruby-talk #5545
>>>>> "D" == Dave Thomas <Dave@thomases.com> writes:

D> 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.

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

 OK, but how many script do you break ?

 For example in test.rb 

   tt{|i| break if i == 5}
   test_ok(i == 5)

 Why not something like 'let', with this pseudo-syntax (this is just an
 example not a proposition)

   dvar(a, b) # a and b are forced to be dynamic variable in the block
              # even if it exist a local variable a
     # do what you want
   end

 but unfortunately I can't make this work :-(

   a = 24 # local variable
   dvar(a, b)
     a = b = 12 # dynamic variable
     dvar(b)
        b = 24
     end
     b # here b has the value 24 when I want 12 :-( :-(
   end
   a # local variable


Guy Decoux

In This Thread