James Gray wrote:
> On May 27, 2008, at 12:33 PM, David Flanagan wrote:
> 
>> I think, and I hope others agree, that design of any new lambda syntax 
>> (including Eric's bare blocks) should happen in the Ruby 2.0 
>> development branch rather than being inserted into 1.9 at this very 
>> late date.
> 
> Egad, no.  If we're going to "fix" this, let's do it now before 1.9 is 
> released on the general populace.  There's no point in going from lambda 
> in 1.8 to -> in 1.9 and then back to lambda in 2.0.  That's just silly.

I think you misunderstand me, James.  I'm suggesting that we debate the 
removal of -> from 1.9 but that we hold off on debating any replacements 
for -> (such as the fn keyword or Eric's bare blocks) and save that 
design discussion for 2.0.  That is, maybe -> gets removed from 1.9, but 
that nothing gets added to 1.9 in its place.

      David Flanagan

> James Edward Gray II
> 
> 
>