From: "David A. Black" <dblack@...>
Date: 2003-12-10T02:55:08+09:00
Subject: Re: Adjusting the Scope of Blocks

Hi --

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, ts wrote:

> >>>>> "D" == David A Black <dblack@wobblini.net> writes:
> 
> D> I think that's what bothers me about this: it strikes me as a hybrid,
> D> ad hoc way to achieve something that is neither really a closure nor
> 
>  Well, it's a closure no ?

That's what I'm trying to figure out.  

  def n; puts "n"; end
  x = 1
  lam = lambda { n; puts x }

I would expect that, as a closure, lam would always "remember" n and x
from the context of its creation.  Apparently it remembers x, but can
be made to forget about n.  That what seems very "magic" to me (and
sort of unencapsulated).  

I understand that n is a method call and therefore is sensitive to
'self' in a way that local variables aren't; this is what I meant
earlier about scope and self being different concepts.  I guess I
don't like the idea of swapping self *inside* the block (as opposed to
the 'self' in whose context the block is called).

> D> (in my opinion) really in keeping with the usual behavior and purpose
> D> of #instance_eval.
> 
>  and you don't like class_eval ?

Uh oh.  I sense the beginning of the end :-)  What don't I (appear to)
like about it?


David

-- 
David A. Black
dblack@wobblini.net