At 05:38 AM 6/1/2001 +0900, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:

>Hey! -- If I count right, 4 persons (Sean Russell, Hal E. Fulton, Dan
>Moniz and Mirian Crzig Lennox) all bold out that for cosmetic reasons or
>fear of change, they don't like the <..> syntax. Wait, no flame but isn't
>there reasons more important than that?
>
>We should underline for example that the <..> thingy fixing up the
>problems with local variables not being local is a great step forward for
>Ruby!

I'm definitely meddling in something I don't understand fully here, but 
beyond the cosmetic approach, is there a way to fix the local variables 
issue in the semantics of Ruby rather than amending the syntax? Or would 
that be more damaging?


--
Dan Moniz <dnm / pobox.com> [http://www.pobox.com/~dnm/]