[#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:5819] Re: local variables (nested, in-block, parameters, etc.)

From: matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
Date: 2000-10-24 15:59:20 UTC
List: ruby-talk #5819
Hi,

In message "[ruby-talk:5818] Re: local variables (nested, in-block, parameters, etc.)"
    on 00/10/24, ts <decoux@moulon.inra.fr> writes:

|G> So, does this amount to it *creating* a local var to bind to if no local 
|G> var already exists?  GREAT idea. And I don't think it would cause much
|G> incompatibility since if no local var was seen, then it probably isn't
|G> used later, either (or if it is, is probably initialized). The only
|
| It break some closure, for example in test.rb
|
|   eval "(0..9).each{|i5| $x[i5] = proc{i5*2}}", x
|   test_ok($x[4].call == 8)

I'm thinking of adding a new rule that the scope of a new block
parameter (|| variable) is extended if it is referred out of the
block.  So i5 in

>   eval "(0..9).each{|i5| $x[i5] = proc{i5*2}}", x
>   test_ok($x[4].call == 8)

will be in-block variable (as is now).  But i6 in

  [1,2,3].each{|i6| break if i6 % 2 == 0}
  p i6    # referred out of a block

will be a plain local variable.  How do you think?
Too complicated?

							matz.

In This Thread