```On 04/08/05, David A. Black <dblack / wobblini.net> wrote:
> Hi --
>
> On Thu, 4 Aug 2005, [ISO-8859-1] Brian Schröäer wrote:
>
> > On 04/08/05, David A. Black <dblack / wobblini.net> wrote:
> >> Hi --
> >>
> >> On Thu, 4 Aug 2005, [ISO-8859-1] Brian Schröäer wrote:
> >>
> >>> [snip]
> >>>
> >>> Then why don't we use two different delimiters, e.g. (,) which would
> >>> even unify with method declaration.
> >>>
> >>> { (a, b=12) a+b }
> >>> is quite clear, and counting nesting parenthesis has to be done in any
> >>> parser so this
> >>>
> >>> { (a=12, (b,c) = [1,2]) a+b**c }
> >>> is also possible
> >>
> >> However, { (a) } would be ambiguous. (I don't particularly mind living
> >> without default values in blocks, but I think () wouldn't fly.)
> >
> > One could disambiguate this the same way it is done with methods:
> >
> > { () (a) }
> >
> > like in
> >
> > def anonymus() (a) end
>
> But then you'd have empty parens all over the place.  I guess there
> aren't that many paramless blocks, but there are some, like:
>
>    Hash.new { () [] }   # ugh
>

Why should you write it like that. If there is no starting ( there is
no argument list. So

Hash.new { [] }

would work in this case.

You'd only need an () if the expression starts with a (.

But maybe there are better options.

regards,

Brian

> > or one could use a differnt pair of symbols, though I don't really like that.
> >
> > { <a, b=12> a+b }
>
>    irb(main):005:0> def x(a = 1 > 0); p a; end
>    => nil
>    irb(main):006:0> x
>    true
>

Ahh, I didn't think of that, and I'm shure theres also a big flaw in
my other thoughts.

regards,

Brian

--
http://ruby.brian-schroeder.de/

Stringed instrument chords: http://chordlist.brian-schroeder.de/

```