On 10/18/05, Sean O'Halpin <sean.ohalpin / gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
> I ~was~ being ironic (hence the ;)

I know. I still think it was worth a response.

>> 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.

Hmm. I think it will. But I encourage you and those interested in this
to write an RCR for it. Who knows? It might be accepted. It probably
won't be anything that affects me.

>> 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!

Hm. Is that necessarily a closure issue or an abuse of a particular
feature in search of something else? I'm not going to pretend that I
really understand the problem they were having, so ... it might be
something that can be solved in other ways in Ruby 1.9.

> 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.

I'm glad you do.

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