Dido Sevilla wrote:
> Interesting. So I suppose that means that there's a hole in Ruby's
> implementation of lexical scoping...? It's sort of reminiscent of the
> problems people run into with non-hygienic macros in Lisp dialects.

I guess, it's rather not a hole in the implementation, but sort of a 
missed idea. The 1.8 behaviour is deterministic and documented, but 
discouraged because there's no real need to use this as a feature, and 
it is not elegant because the lambda argument list "looks like" variable 
definition but is not, which makes the code harder to understand. And 
then the next step from 'discouraged' is 'gone', as we see in 1.9.

TPR.
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.