On 10/19/05, 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.
>
> -austin
> --
> Austin Ziegler * halostatue / gmail.com
>               * Alternate: austin / halostatue.ca
Hi,

I ~was~ being ironic (hence the ;)

> Doubtful. I think to convince matz, real examples would need to be
> presented (as an RCR!) as to why this is necessary.

Good point. I don't think it would be hard to get examples.

> IANM, but IMO
> theoretical need and wish ain't sufficient.

This is no theoretical need - see the recent thread on Rails developer
mode reloading woes for a real world example of how badly managed
closures can cripple an application. Also, it would be interesting to
cook up an implementation to see if there is a performance gain (not
the primary motivation however). The problem would be in getting a
decent syntax!

I understand your point however - it's all too easy to just think up
something you think you might like to have without any real need.

Regards,

Sean