From: Olivier Nenert <olivier@...>
Date: 2003-08-21T06:00:12+09:00
Subject: Re: for/in loop

hi Hal,
I think kurt was asking "which one of the two scenarios would be fixed by a 
new scoping rule ?"
not "what do you mean by it would work ?"
It's an exelent question I think, when the new scoping rule is introduced, 
either y will be visible outside the each scope,
or the x will stop being visible ouside the for loop,
I wonder too, surely Matz knows so well what he talks about it was obvious 
to him, but it isn't to me
(and Kurt I guess) :)

Cheers,
Olivier.
(thanx for your posts btw, I'm just starting to read about ruby
and found your posts to be the most helpful so far)

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kurt M. Dresner" <kdresner@cs.utexas.edu>
> To: "ruby-talk ML" <ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 1:07 PM
> Subject: Re: for/in loop
>
>
>> What do you mean by it would work?  The first one will raise a
>> NameError, or the second one will output 3 ?
>
> I think it's a minor problem with Matz's English. I believe he
> means "it will work when the new scoping rule is introduced" or
> "it would work, if the new scoping rule were already in place."
>
> Hal
>
>
>> -Kurt
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 01:56:44AM +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > In message "Re: for/in loop"
>> >     on 03/08/21, Paul Brannan <pbrannan@atdesk.com> writes:
>> >
>> > |It's definitely not pointless:
>> > |
>> > |  for i in [1, 2, 3]
>> > |    x = i
>> > |  end
>> > |  p x #=> 3
>> > |
>> > |  [1, 2, 3].each do
>> > |    y = i
>> > |  end
>> > |  p y #=> test.rb:9: undefined local variable or method `y' for
> #<Object:0x40289ce0> (NameError)
>> >
>> > Yes, but it would work, when new scoping rule is introduced.
>> >
>> > matz.
>> >
>> >======= End of Original Message =======<
>>
>
>
>
>



-- 
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/