On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:

> I'm puzzled by how this new behaviour would make anything actually easier
> for anyone, while demanding significant workarounds for code that relies
> on having separate locals for multiple activations of a closure.

Actually, looking at http://www.rubygarden.org/ruby?Rite, I can only see a
change in the opposite direction, block locals, and although I can't
justify that change either, at least it doesn't have as much of a
compatibility issue.

What confuses me most in all of this is, why the change towards a flat
local space isn't included in Matz' list, and why an opposite idea is
included in Matz' list. I also feel that the item in matz' list is not
completely clear, and suspect that I don't really understand it.

________________________________________________________________
Mathieu Bouchard                       http://artengine.ca/matju