[#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:5674] Re: local variables (nested, in-block, parameters, etc.)

From: ts <decoux@...>
Date: 2000-10-18 17:16:36 UTC
List: ruby-talk #5674
>>>>> "H" == Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@dmu.ac.uk> writes:

 Difficult to explain because I don't speak english, it's better if you
look at eval.c and look for NODE_ITER and NODE_FOR

 NODE_ITER is used for 'each'
 NODE_FOR implement 'for' (see the call to rb_call(..., each,...) in NODE_FOR)

H> Then 'for' simply isn't syntactic sugar for the braces or for the
H> do...end.   It does a similar job, but does it differently.  The author

 It does a similar job, and do it the same way.

The difference is that 'each' introduce a dynamic scope, when 'for' don't 
introduce this scope.

 You have in the source of rb_yield_0

    if (block->flags & BLOCK_D_SCOPE) {
	/* put place holder for dynamic (in-block) local variables */
	ruby_dyna_vars = new_dvar(0, 0, block->d_vars);
    }
    else {
	/* FOR does not introduce new scope */
	ruby_dyna_vars = block->d_vars;
    }

H> So that rule about precedence has gone in 1.6?

 Apparently, yes

Guy Decoux

In This Thread

Prev Next