On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, T. Onoma wrote:

> > 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.
> 
> Hmm...there would have to be an exception made for lambdas. Another minus.

what's the difference between a lambda/proc and a block?

BTW it's impossible for a method that receive a blocks to pass it to
another method without turning it into a proc/lambda (using the &
prefixes), so it makes distinctions between lambda/proc and block rather
undesirable, as there are some techniques that rely on passing blocks
around, and can't work if it involves a difference of behaviour between
"real block" and "block that was converted from a proc that was converted
from a block".

So I'm not sure how that exception would work at all, if an exception were
to be applied...

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