Dave Thomas wrote:

# I'm wondering: was the idea of having a different block type for
# scope protection just too stupid? I've seen no comments about
# ruby-talk:12393.

I thought it was sort of a neat idea. 

(Meaning: I'm not sure if it is a good solution here, but I wish I was the 
one who first thought it up.)

===============================

((WRT the subject line of this thread: I would prefer 'not_my' for 
declaring non-local variables if one went for a Perl style hack, since 
that seems like it would require much less typographic noise for "maximum 
maintainer-friendly safety mode", which would otherwise require the 
incessant my, my, my, my, my, my, my, and still more my's that uglifies 
and obscures so much Perl code.))

Conrad Schneiker
(This note is unofficial and subject to improvement without notice.)