On Aug 23, 2009, at 15:58, Yehuda Katz wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz / ruby-lang.org 
> > wrote:
>> 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.
>
> The compelling this for me is that it makes methods that take  
> multiple blocks easier for programmer to read. For programmer, one  
> big confusion in Ruby is difference between proc, block, lambda and  
> method. Unifying syntax for block and proc shows that they are  
> really just same thing, with proc passed as parameter and block  
> passed as special parameter.

If they're all blocks, how do you yield to them?

I think multiple procs followed by a block is code smell therefore it  
should be difficult to read and clumsy to write by default.