Hi --

On Mon, 24 Aug 2009, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

> Hi,
>
> In message "Re: [ruby-core:25049] Re: Proposal: Simpler block format"
>    on Sun, 23 Aug 2009 15:53:03 +0900, Yehuda Katz <wycats / gmail.com> writes:
>
> |Things that currently don't parse are fine to become blocks. I'd be worried
> |about a case that currently parsed fine as a Hash but might be expected to
> |be parsed as a block if this feature existed. Can you think of any?
>
> I don't worry about the ambiguity for the parser, but have anxiety for
> humans.  Under the new syntax, when we see
>
>  m {"this is a block not a proc"}
>
> there are two possibility.  And it would be burden for mind of the
> programmers.  That's the reason I insisted the past proposal (that
> was from David Black, IIRC).  This time, we have working code for the
> proposal, so we can try.  Let's see how we feel.

I don't think I was the one who proposed this. I'd not be in favor of
it, in fact. It feels like too much "invisible ink", and too much
re-training of the eye and brain, without a clear (to me) payoff.


David

-- 
David A. Black / Ruby Power and Light, LLC / http://www.rubypal.com
Q: What's the best way to get a really solid knowledge of Ruby?
A: Come to our Ruby training in Edison, New Jersey, September 14-17!
    Instructors: David A. Black and Erik Kastner
    More info and registration: http://rubyurl.com/vmzN