David A. Black wrote:

> Rather,
> the question is: if Ruby had been designed from the ground up with a
> literal function constructor, would it have been {|| } ?

Do you mean syntactically? Like instead of Smalltalk like [| ]? or 
something else?

>  If so, then
> fine.  If not, then {|| } would be an add-on that is not properly
> integrated into the language.

and here, more specifically, "not properly integrated into the language 
syntax"?

Steve.