Zach Dennis wrote:
> Zach Dennis wrote:
> 
>> Trans wrote:
>>
>>> Zach Dennis wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I just
>>>>> don't particularly care for the proposed syntax:
>>>>>
>>>>>  anon = ->(x = 5) { ... }
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Was there an RCR for this syntax? If so what is it's name, I do not see
>>>> it on rcrchive.net ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It's Matz' baby; borrwoed from Perl. So no RCR required.
>>>
>>
>> Is the -> syntax still open for debate Matz? I agree with Austin on 
>> this. The syntax here is just ugly.
> 
> 
> I wanted to partially rephrase this last comment in case it comes across 
> the wrong way. Is the syntax open for debate at all? If not then I 
> respectfully withdraw any further arguments on my behalf on this topic. 
> If it is open for debate, then I'd like to voice my opinion as others 
> have already, that I would rather prefer a more elegant syntax.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Zach
> 
> 

I agree. The `->(args) {}' syntax is cluttered and hard to read. The 
best solution would be to make the parser work with default values for 
block arguments. I know that will take some work, but it's by far the 
most elegant and consistent solution.

   lambda { |a, b = nil| ... }


Cheers,
Daniel