From: Jean-Hugues ROBERT <jean_hugues_robert@...>
Date: 2004-05-03T20:29:12+09:00
Subject: Re: Why no Proc##[]=() ? Why no Proc##replace() ?

Thanks.
I guess I need to :
while not done_xxx
   begin
     x = nil
     p = lambda { x ||= long_method }
   end
...
using begin/end to make sure that *each* proc has its own x
EOM
Jean-Hugues

At 14:39 03/05/2004 +0900, you wrote:
>Local variables work, but they have to be defined outside of the scope of the
>block:
>
>   x = nil
>   p = lambda { x ||= long_method }
>
>   p.call
>   p.call
>
>This only calls long_method once, at least on my version of Ruby (1.8.1).
>
>Apparently, without the preceding "x = nil" x goes back to being undefined
>when the block closes, so changes to it aren't persistant. If it's defined
>outside the scope of the block, though, those changes stay.
>
>Maybe this will change when locals leak out of block scoping. Currently if
>you want x to be accessible after the block, you need the preceding x = nil.
>But in 2.0 it's changing so that you won't, so maybe you won't need it in
>this case either.
>
>- Dan

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Web:  http://hdl.handle.net/1030.37/1.1
Phone: +33 (0) 4 92 27 74 17