On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Leo Razoumov wrote:

> I really do not want to see Ruby falling into the same trap. 
> Proper lexical scops is a very well established concept and judging by the
> volume in 'my' variable thread people on the list consider it emportant enough
> to care about (including Mr.Ruby himself).
> As a entusiastic Ruby programmer I can live by without many other features,
> but proper lexical scoping (at least as an option) is very high on my wish list. 
> 
> Declaritive syntax like Scheme's (let (...) ...) is good enough!

What I find particularly compelling about Dave's analysis is that it's
orthagonal to the question of whether any particular feature is
important.  There's no suggestion that features and behaviors never be
added to Ruby.  As I understand it, Dave's emphasis is on a kind of
sandbox practice (if that's not too trivializing a term for projects
like MetaRuby), where changes *can* be made and examined and lived
with -- and, once that has happened, possibly brought into Ruby
itself.


David

-- 
David Alan Black
home: dblack / candle.superlink.net
work: blackdav / shu.edu
Web:  http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav