Clemens Hintze <clemens.hintze / alcatel.de> writes:

> 2.11 How do I pass arguments to a block? 
>    The formal parameters of a block appear between vertical bars at
>    the start of the block:
> 
>       proc { |a, b| a <=> b }
> 
> Here you have not only shown a block, but a closure! I think you
> should delete 'proc' because a newbie could feel that there has to be
> a 'proc' before every block.

I tried hard only to show valid Ruby syntax in the code fragments. In
fact, the source of the FAQ is actually pre-processed by a Ruby
script, and all the output and error messages you see are generated by 
Ruby. A bare block is not valid syntax, so I put the minimum needed
around it to make it compilable.

> Here you probably should use matz' way of method naming. As you have
> written it, it could also mean call of singleton method 'call' of
> class 'Proc'. Matz has often written like Proc#call. I found this
> construct more apropiate. IMHO, there is a difference between
> 'Proc.new' and 'Proc#new'. First means method call, second means name
> of method. What do you think?

We thought long and hard about this (and the jury's still
out). Although there _is_ a distinction between A#s and A.s, is it
significant to the end user? The normal convention is to show by
example, so we felt that Proc.new was better--it shows both the name
_and_ how to call it. IF we put Proc#new, we were worried people would 
actually write it that way, and then bitch when they got syntax
errors.

Group--what's you feeling about this?

> You could mention a hint to copy that script to the site_ruby
> directory of the current installation. After doing so one easily could
> get a command line by typing

Good point.


Thanks again for all your useful input.


Dave



-- 
Thomas Consulting.
Innovative and successful developments with Unix, Java, C, and C++. 

Now in bookstores:
 The Pragmatic Programmer.  www.pragmaticprogrammer.com/ppbook/