On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 05:32:09AM +0900, Mathieu Bouchard wrote: > I think the actual problem would be more with code that does things like > this: > > def foo(n) > (0...n).map { > proc {a=0; proc{a+=1;a}}[] > } > end This would work with the new rules (and the current ones), I believe: def foo(n) (0...n).map { proc {|a| proc{ a += 1; a } }[0] } end > I expect this code to produce n distinct counters that will each produce > their own independent sequence 1,2,3,4,5,... when called repeatedly. If it > becomes impossible to do this anymore, then I won't be able to honestly > say that Ruby really supports closures. It won't be impossible, just inconvenient. -- _ _ | |__ __ _| |_ ___ _ __ ___ __ _ _ __ | '_ \ / _` | __/ __| '_ ` _ \ / _` | '_ \ | |_) | (_| | |_\__ \ | | | | | (_| | | | | |_.__/ \__,_|\__|___/_| |_| |_|\__,_|_| |_| Running Debian GNU/Linux Sid (unstable) batsman dot geo at yahoo dot com How do I type "for i in *.dvi do xdvi $i done" in a GUI? -- Discussion in comp.os.linux.misc on the intuitiveness of interfaces