From: "David A. Black" <dblack@...>
Date: 2003-12-10T02:39:37+09:00
Subject: Re: Adjusting the Scope of Blocks

Hi --

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Robert Klemme wrote:

> 
> "Dan Doel" <djd15@po.cwru.edu> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:3FD5F0F8.3030500@po.cwru.edu...
> >
> > >I had never noticed that closures behave this way when
> > >instance_eval'd.  My initial reaction is dislike.  To me it feels too
> > >close to having the code in the block interpreted as an eval string.
> > >
> > >...
> > >
> > >
> > >It feels non-closure-like to me.  I don't see why a block should care
> > >what 'self' is at the time it's called; I thought the point was for it
> > >to preserve the context of its creation.
> 
> Well, is a special kind of closure; a closure that allows through internal
> magic that self is temporarily bound to something other than at creation
> time (dunny a term for this though).  From a theoretical point of view it
> might be spooky, but it comes in handy from time to time if you need to
> invoke several methods of an instance.

Yikes -- spooky magic.  Sounds worse and worse :-)

You're describing it accurately, but my point is not that I don't see
what it's doing but that I don't like what it's doing.  (See my
response to Dan.)

I wonder whether the saving grace of this might be the & character.
That does at least give a visual cue.  But the idea of a closure
becoming "special" based on how it's treated somewhere else in the
program doesn't do much for me at this point.  


David

-- 
David A. Black
dblack@wobblini.net