From: Tom Sawyer <transami@...>
Date: 2003-02-14T11:16:29+09:00
Subject: Re: Lexical scope and closures

On Thursday 13 February 2003 06:44 pm, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In message "Re: Lexical scope and closures"
>
>     on 03/02/13, Tom Sawyer <transami@transami.net> writes:
> |since there seems to be two general cases that are competing for
> | high-ground, so to speak, i wonder if it would not be more prudent to
> | distinguish the two with seperate block deliminators?
>
> I don't think it's good idea, because it kinda hard to remember which
> is which.  Besides, block delimiters already have precedence
> difference, I believe adding two independent roles to a single syntax
> construct is bad.
>
> 							matz.

i understand, but perhaps too bad, as i think it might be the easiest way to 
satisfy both camps.

aside, i am curious about the precedence though, as i have never had the need 
to pay attention to it. is it a common need? is there no other simple way to 
designate the precedence one might need in such a situtation?

on the other hand we could appraoch it with a simple variation:

	arr.each do local |x| r = x + 1; puts r end

or, perhaps better,

	arr.each local do |x| r = x + 1; puts r end

in either case r would be local to the block.

-- 
tom sawyer, aka transami
transami@transami.net