Jenda, certainly u b trollin'
  "rubyists" accept whatever it is. Not all changes need to be  
backward compatible. If changes are well documented and reduce  
unintended side-effects, then they're fine and easy enough to fix.
On Mar 9, 2007, at 11:32 PM, Jenda Krynicky wrote:

> Brian Candler wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 08:49:00PM +0900, Jenda Krynicky wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, maybe it does the exact some thing ... and maybe it also  
>>> changes
>>> the obj variable from whatever it was before this line to the last
>>> object in the list.
>>
>> FWIW, I understand this is/has changed in ruby 1.9, so that block
>> parameters are always local to the block.
>
> Makes sense. Except that it's a backwards incompatible change.
>
> I don't see why can't the rubyists accept that sometimes it does make
> sense to be able to explicitely declare a variable, to explicitely  
> mark
> an assignment as being more than as assignment, but rather also a
> variable declaration. Even if allowing myself to ask Ruby to report a
> compiletime error if I do not mark the first assignments is out of
> question.
>
> Jenda
>
> -- 
> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
>