On 7/11/07, dblack / wobblini.net <dblack / wobblini.net> wrote:
> Hi --
>
> On Wed, 11 Jul 2007, Chad Perrin wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 09:28:14AM +0900, dblack / wobblini.net wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 11 Jul 2007, Chad Perrin wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 07:36:34AM +0900, ara.t.howard wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> i'm with matz on this one
> >>>>
> >>>>  block.yield
> >>>>
> >>>> reads, to me, simple as
> >>>>
> >>>>  'doing my own thing...'
> >>>>
> >>>>  block.yield 'control to you'
> >>>
> >>> Speaking more generally . . .
> >>>
> >>> The way I've always read the object.message syntax is that you're saying
> >>> something like "Hey, Object!  I want you to [yield]."  Substitute the
> >>> particular message you're sending for [yield] as necessary.
> >>
> >> Exactly -- blocks don't yield, so let's not ask them to :-)
> >
> > Is the word "accept" being used for anything?
>
> $ ri Proc#accept
> Nothing known about Proc#accept
>
> Doesn't look like it :-)
>
Too bad because I could not accept accept ;)
Seriously, accept what, to be run?
Well if you native speakers think it is good, I will shut my mouth,
but it really sounds strange to me.
Robert

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