[#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:5555] Re: local variables (nested, in-block, parameters, etc.)

From: cle@... (Clemens Hintze)
Date: 2000-10-15 20:40:01 UTC
List: ruby-talk #5555
In article <E13krCQ-0002h1-00@ev.netlab.zetabits.co.jp>,
  Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
>Hi,

(...)

>Dave's idea in [ruby-talk:5546] (i.e. lambda{<a,b> ...}) is
>interesting. It'll make Ruby slightly more complex, but solves problem
>1 above without incompatibility.  If no one find the problem for this,
>I think I'm going to implement this in 1.7.

Hmmm ... What do you think about the following? Valid expressions between 
'|' ... '|' are lexpr, yes? What about using one violence of that to get 
the desired behavior? In detail ...

  { |a, b, c| ... }
  
works as we expect currently, but (in violence of the allowed lexpr) we
could allow symbols as well:

  { |:a, :b, :c| ... }
  
This could mean our new behavior, creating closure local variables (named
after the symbols value) that are not shared with any of the outside.

The advantage could be, that we even could mix both behaviors if we want so.


Just my two cents,
\cle

-- 
Clemens Hintze  mailto: c.hintze@gmx.net

In This Thread