From: "Mauricio Fernández" <batsman.geo@...>
Date: 2003-02-13T08:21:35+09:00
Subject: Re: Lexical scope and closures

On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 08:11:53AM +0900, Brian Candler wrote:
> (3) some other syntax will be introduced for cases where you really need j
> to be a block-local variable (e.g. if this block calls itself recursively or
> is a thread). This might be something like:
> 
>  [1,2,3].each{|x|
>    local { |j|
>      j = x
>    }
>  }
> 
> This has been discussed at great length :-)

I know, but let me catch my chance to state that
  I want sugar for the above!
(never thought I'd ask for that at the time I admired C's terse syntax,
but I'm requesting terseness, anyway: the above involves lots of typing
and another indentation level)

-- 
 _           _                             
| |__   __ _| |_ ___ _ __ ___   __ _ _ __  
| '_ \ / _` | __/ __| '_ ` _ \ / _` | '_ \ 
| |_) | (_| | |_\__ \ | | | | | (_| | | | |
|_.__/ \__,_|\__|___/_| |_| |_|\__,_|_| |_|
	Running Debian GNU/Linux Sid (unstable)
batsman dot geo at yahoo dot com

Footnotes are for things you believe don't really belong in LDP manuals,
but want to include anyway.
	-- Joel N. Weber II discussing the 'make' chapter of LPG