[#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:5627] Re: local variables (nested, in-block, parameters, etc.)

From: cle@... (Clemens Hintze)
Date: 2000-10-17 07:40:08 UTC
List: ruby-talk #5627
In article <E13lDof-0003H5-00@ev.netlab.zetabits.co.jp>,
   Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
>Hi,

Hi too,

(...)

>When you use blocks as lambda/closure, yes.  But not that strange when
>you use blocks for iteration.  That's the problem.

Sorry matz, but could you show me a simple example where such a construct is
necessary? I use Ruby now for several years, but I am sure I never had to
use that feature until today. I know it exists, but I really cannot remember
that I need it ... perhaps I have a wrong imagination, so I would like to
ask you for an example ...

(...)

>Agreed, once consensus be made up that block parameter should be block
>local, even for iteration.  From this point, using <> for block
>parameter used for closure arguments is bit more acceptable for me.

Hmmm ... for me it should be ok, if block parameter are block local; I never
had used it the other way around, AFAIK. FMPOV, we could also make block
parameters block local and add a warning switch that complains, if a block
parameter has the same name as an variable in the scope above!

Then I could find places where I had done this, and fix it.

But, OTOH, we could also decide to let it as it is ... :-)


>							matz.
\cle

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

In This Thread