On 7/10/07, Bharat Ruparel <bruparel / mercury.com> wrote:
> > I've always thought of the yield mechanism as one of the most
> > strikingly elegant and expressive things in Ruby.  (More subjective
> > judgment :-)  I'm actually very surprised to hear that it's likely to
> > disappear, or change considerably.
> >
>
> I think that Matz is on to something again!
> The more I think of yeild as a method on an object, less it bothers me.
> I have the mental crutch of being able to alias it anytime I wish.
> Therefore, it does not seem like a big deal anymore whereas as a keyword
> it is a big deal to me.  I guess the reason is that I am comfortable
> dealing with different method names meaning the same thing in ruby,
> e.g., map and collect.  I prefer map to collect.
> I believe that as a rule, the language keywords should be as natural as
> possible whereas library method names can and should be customizable.
>
> Bharat
>

What you say is very sensible indeed, I do have a tiny little problem
with the approach though, it is restrictive.
You do not like yield? So why would you use it?
But why take it away from those who like to have it at their disposal?

Cheers
Robert

-- 
I always knew that one day Smalltalk would replace Java.
I just didn't know it would be called Ruby
-- Kent Beck