--- Austin Ziegler <halostatue / gmail.com> wrote:

> On 10/18/05, Sean O'Halpin <sean.ohalpin / gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 10/18/05, Eric Mahurin <eric_mahurin / yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > But, I kind of still
> > > wish we had a syntax where the variables in a
> block/lambda were
> > > local (non-closure) by default.
> > Maybe if we say it often enough? ;)
> 
> Doubtful. I think to convince matz, real examples would need
> to be
> presented (as an RCR!) as to why this is necessary. IANM, but
> IMO
> theoretical need and wish ain't sufficient.

With 1.9 being able to specify local variables in the argument
list and if matz does something about closures holding all
variables in the scope, I doubt you'll find the "need".  If
there are too many issues (i.e. compatibility problems) with
having closures not hold all variables in the scope, I think
having a non-closure block that didn't have that baggage
(excess memory usage) would be compelling.  In the majority of
cases I use blocks, I don't need them to be closures.




	
		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com