On 24 Dec 2007, at 11:39, SASADA Koichi wrote:

>>  as I would expect.
>>
>> Is this change intentional ? I haven't been able to find anything
>> written about it. I've had a quick scan back through the source and  
>> this
>> isn't a particularly recent change - r11500 exhibits the same  
>> behaviour.
>> I'd be curious to hear the rationale if this is indeed intentional
>
> This is a bug.  If you write a block in method do_stuff_to_foo
> directly, it's work fine.  I'll fix it.
>
Cool. Thanks!

Fred