In article <E13lDof-0003H5-00 / ev.netlab.zetabits.co.jp>,
   Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
>Hi,

Hi too,

(...)

>When you use blocks as lambda/closure, yes.  But not that strange when
>you use blocks for iteration.  That's the problem.

Sorry matz, but could you show me a simple example where such a construct is
necessary? I use Ruby now for several years, but I am sure I never had to
use that feature until today. I know it exists, but I really cannot remember
that I need it ... perhaps I have a wrong imagination, so I would like to
ask you for an example ...

(...)

>Agreed, once consensus be made up that block parameter should be block
>local, even for iteration.  From this point, using <> for block
>parameter used for closure arguments is bit more acceptable for me.

Hmmm ... for me it should be ok, if block parameter are block local; I never
had used it the other way around, AFAIK. FMPOV, we could also make block
parameters block local and add a warning switch that complains, if a block
parameter has the same name as an variable in the scope above!

Then I could find places where I had done this, and fix it.

But, OTOH, we could also decide to let it as it is ... :-)


>							matz.
\cle

-- 
Clemens Hintze  mailto: c.hintze / gmx.net