On Jun 9, 2011, at 6:54 AM, Lazaridis Ilias wrote:

> * existent code behaves exactly the same
> * only if existent code is changed to use defaults, care must be take =
to not shadow local variables (should be very rare that an "accident" =
happens)


You seem to have discovered that it's "very rare" that Ruby code would
ever occur in this form:

item =3D expr_1
...
list.each { bar(item) }  # or any local variable reference

You will have to provide evidence that this is "very rare" because your =
proposed
change will likely break all such code. Your choice of identifier has
enormous ramifications as a result. Simple waving this away as "should
be very rare" is not comforting to people who actually write Ruby.

Michael Edgar
adgar / carboni.ca
http://carboni.ca/=