On Tuesday 25 November 2003 03:59 am, Sean E. Russell wrote:
> -----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.

Well okay. But I use eval a lot and I can honestly say that having a way to do 
what I'm asking would really be very USEFUL, whether it fits into present 
"conceptions of scope" of not. Would you be more accepting if it had its own 
special syntax that explictly said "hey, i'm looking up here; I'm not in the 
same scope." ?

  a = [1,2,3]
  eval {
    p ^|a|
  }

For example.

-t0

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

Huh. A force of nature you say?

> - --
> ### 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-----