On 10/18/05, Eric Mahurin <eric_mahurin / yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- 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.

As I said earlier, though, most of the blocks (I'd say 60%) that I use
are closures. Some of these are because I need a value to come out of
the block, but I still use them as closures.

-austin
--
Austin Ziegler * halostatue / gmail.com
               * Alternate: austin / halostatue.ca