On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 11:06 AM, David A. Black <dblack / rubypal.com> wrote:
>  @Dave: you once suggested something like this (I think in San Diego):

I think you are right.  It was San Diego.

>   def (a,b,c)
>     # code
>   end
>
>  as a way to create an anonymous function that used method argument
>  semantics (which I think is what the whole -> thing is about). There
>  was applause and cheering from the room. I'm not sure what happened to
>  that idea.

I would love to see this supported regardless of the lambda issue.
This would make it a lot easier to avoid unwanted closures as well as
make it easy to define a bound Method object (assuming it would bind
to the self in scope).

I think part of the reason it died was that current def expressions
just return nil rather than any reified object representation.  This
overhead might be able to be avoided in the more advanced
implementations though, or at least this could be a special case.

Brian.