Tanaka wrote:

> In future, open may have many proc arguments as:
> 
> open(name, progress_proc, content_progress_proc,
>   extra_request_header_proc, handle_response_header_proc, ...)
> 
> I don't like that.
> I don't want to remember the order.
> I don't want to specify number of nil for arguments I don't care.
> 
> So, although it has no backward compatibility, it has extensibility
> problem.

oh i see. other type of procs! okay, hash is better then. do you want me to do it? i had it that way before and i can just put it back. the thing about the proc arguements though, each proc in the hash could take different arguments. hmmm....is is possible for the hash key itself to determine which args to pass in to the proc rather then making up names for them? for instance:

open( url, { pos: proc { |b| ...} } )  # would pass #pos

or something like that. just a thought.
 
> Do you know pipe of Unix?

funny you ask, because i keep reading and reading about them, but for some reason i never quite understand them. most tech writers just assume you know, i guess. i sort of know how to use them on command line to pipe output from one command into another. can you more easily explain?

-t0