From: Robert Klemme <bob.news@...>
Date: 2003-02-17T20:24:51+09:00
Subject: Re: Lexical scope and closures


I see.  Thanks!

    robert


"Mauricio Fern�ndez" <batsman.geo@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:20030217094102.GA13990@student.ei.uni-stuttgart.de...
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2003 at 06:04:30PM +0900, Robert Klemme wrote:
> > > > > > I vote for the second variant, possibly replacing 'let' with
> > 'local'. The
> > > > > > drawback of the first variant is IMHO that it is too easily
> > recognized as
> > > > > > an ordinary block.
> > > > >
> > > > > Because it is an ordinary block.
> > > >
> > > > ?  Why would you then need a 'local' keyword at all?
> > >
> > > def local; yield; end
> >
> > Err, sorry, I don't get what you mean.  Could you please write another
> > explaining sentence?  Thanks a lot!
>
> That mechanism can be implemented in Ruby itself, ie. it doesn't need
> the parser to be modified. Almost all the other possibilities involve
> new keywords or syntax.
>
> def local; yield; end
>
> local do |islocal,istoo|
> islocal = true
> istoo = bla
> end
>
> # both islocal and istoo undefined here.
>
> --
>  _           _
> | |__   __ _| |_ ___ _ __ ___   __ _ _ __
> | '_ \ / _` | __/ __| '_ ` _ \ / _` | '_ \
> | |_) | (_| | |_\__ \ | | | | | (_| | | | |
> |_.__/ \__,_|\__|___/_| |_| |_|\__,_|_| |_|
> Running Debian GNU/Linux Sid (unstable)
> batsman dot geo at yahoo dot com
>
> <sel> need help: my first packet to my provider gets lost :-(
> <netgod> sel:  dont send the first one, start with #2
> * netgod is kidding
>