-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Monday 24 November 2003 20:19, T. Onoma wrote:
> I think you are the One confused, for not seeing what could be, for what
> is. It does not follow the current norms of evals scope, but as I have
> described it: cutting holes though to the higher scope.
>
> Would you like to see how far this rabbit hole goes? Or will you remain
> with your limited "expectations"?

Yup.  I'm a stick in the mud... I like my code to follow the same rules 
wherever it occurs.  What I really hate is code that is exactly the same, but 
behaves differently in different contexts.

I *like* scoping rules to be reliable.  I'm one of those people who doesn't 
like the proc scoping rules, although I agree that it isn't worth breaking 
the existing codebase to fix.  I certainly oppose any attempts to add more 
ambiguity to Ruby's scoping.

Matz, however, is like a force of nature.  You have to ride the current.

- -- 
### SER   
### Deutsch|Esperanto|Francaise|Linux|XML|Java|Ruby|Aikido|Dirigibles
### http://www.germane-software.com/~ser  jabber.com:ser  ICQ:83578737 
### GPG: http://www.germane-software.com/~ser/Security/ser_public.gpg
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/wsVqP0KxygnleI8RAqGVAKC1m8tkCTzb153iZYW3nRTzI8ve4wCeJ41u
765hvQNn+k+xmUW2QMYfYV8=
=2pM+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----