From: Tom Sawyer <transami@...>
Date: 2003-02-14T11:54:56+09:00
Subject: Re: Lexical scope and closures

On Thursday 13 February 2003 07:42 pm, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In message "Re: Lexical scope and closures"
>
>     on 03/02/14, Tom Sawyer <transami@transami.net> writes:
> |i understand, but perhaps too bad, as i think it might be the easiest way
> | to satisfy both camps.
>
> Which camps?  At least this one does not satisfy the "compatibility
> camp", which must be the biggest.  Could you describe other camps
> satisfied by this proposal?

camps:
        1) make'em all local
	2) leave it unchanged

which represent 74.66% or all votes on ruby garden poll.

you are right about compatibility. and i wasn't so much suggesting that this 
be the very syntax to use, i.e. do...end vs. {..}  it was only a Rough 
demonstration.

more suitable would be the changes as you have already suggested plus the 
addition of local keyword. ( i.e.  arr.each local do ... end )

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