Hi,

At Thu, 29 May 2008 22:54:24 +0900,
Paul Brannan wrote in [ruby-core:16991]:
> > [1] Of course, this has been my unfortunate experience of trying to 
> > explain what lambda is to newcomers from C++:  their eyes 
> > glazed-over, thinking that it was mathematics (groan!) I guess.
> 
> C++ is getting lambdas in the future:
> 
>   [&] (int arg1, Foo const & arg2) { return arg2.foo(arg1); }
> 
> I'm surprised nobody's suggested that [&] be added as an alias for ->
> (please don't suggest it).

How do you read this:
  foobar &(foo) {foo.bar()},

  foobar(&foo.to_proc) {foo.bar()}
or
  foobar(lambda{|foo|foo.bar()})
?

The former causes syntax error, but it would introduce
confusion.

-- 
Nobu Nakada