> if the aim is to unify lambda and methods then the move must be towards 
> local
> vars only no? 

Yep, i got very used to the fact that x='something' creates a new local
variable inside a method definition regardless of a x= method in the
surrounding scope. (But using x without creating a local before would 
call the accessor of the surrounding scope)
I know (do-end != def-end) and i don't think i can image all side 
effects on such a change but it would feel like ruby...

..at least to me

> i suppose we'd adapt to whatever came up - but it seems like a dangerous
> change.

cheers

Simon