From: "Mauricio Fernández" <batsman.geo@...>
Date: 2003-02-15T08:13:56+09:00
Subject: Re: Lexical scope and closures

On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 04:41:52AM +0900, Tom Sawyer wrote:
> On Friday 14 February 2003 08:18 am, nobu.nokada@softhome.net wrote:
> 
> > > ?  Why would you then need a 'local' keyword at all?
> >
> > def local; yield; end
> 
> all it does local a and b. ugly, if you ask me.
> 
> hey, i thought of another ugly possibility yesterday! :-)
> 
> arr.each { |i|
>   c = "is local"
>   @c = "is c in outer scope"
>   @@c = "is @c in outerscope"
>   @@@c = "is @@c in outerscope"
> }
> 
> yep, and then you can layers and layers of blocks and eventually end up with:
> 
> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@c = "foo bar"
> 
> fun fun ;-)

Still dreaming of your super-closures? :)
The other notation was more elegant...

FWIW, I find local at the same time
 1) ugly, cause it involves another indentation level and lots of key-presses
 2) beautiful, cause it's defined in the language itself and not by  modifying 
   the parser

At the end of the day, (1) is the most important since I won't be admiring
(2) when I have to type it for the 1000th time.

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

I've no idea when Linus is going to release 2.0.24, but if he takes
too long Im going to release a 2.0.24unoff and he can sound off all
he likes.
	-- Alan Cox