> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mathieu Bouchard [mailto:matju / sympatico.ca] 
> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 1:40 PM
> To: ruby-core / ruby-lang.org
> Subject: Re: New block syntax
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Berger, Daniel wrote:
> 
> > I extremely DISLIKE the new proposed syntax for 
> proc/blocks.  I would 
> > rather we kept lambda/proc keyword mandatory, rather than 
> end up with 
> > goofball syntax like the above, just so we can make anonymous procs 
> > more Perly.
> 
> Could you please tell us what makes the new syntax more 
> Perly, and the old syntax not Perly? Especially, please 
> comment on the following
> examples:

I was thinking of sub references in Perl/Tk actually.  But, the "Perly"
mention is hardly the point of my jab.  My point is that the new syntax
looks bad and will cause no end of confusion with Hash syntax now and
into the future, IMHO.  I just don't understand the push to alter
existing syntax all so we can avoid typing the word "proc".

There's a fine line between terse and obfuscated, and I fear we're
slouching towards the latter.

Regards,

Dan