On Mon, Feb 17, 2003 at 06:04:30PM +0900, Robert Klemme wrote:
> > > > > I vote for the second variant, possibly replacing 'let' with
> 'local'. The
> > > > > drawback of the first variant is IMHO that it is too easily
> recognized as
> > > > > an ordinary block.
> > > >
> > > > Because it is an ordinary block.
> > >
> > > ?  Why would you then need a 'local' keyword at all?
> >
> > def local; yield; end
> 
> Err, sorry, I don't get what you mean.  Could you please write another
> explaining sentence?  Thanks a lot!

That mechanism can be implemented in Ruby itself, ie. it doesn't need
the parser to be modified. Almost all the other possibilities involve
new keywords or syntax.

def local; yield; end

local do |islocal,istoo|
	islocal = true
	istoo = bla
end

# both islocal and istoo undefined here.

-- 
 _           _                             
| |__   __ _| |_ ___ _ __ ___   __ _ _ __  
| '_ \ / _` | __/ __| '_ ` _ \ / _` | '_ \ 
| |_) | (_| | |_\__ \ | | | | | (_| | | | |
|_.__/ \__,_|\__|___/_| |_| |_|\__,_|_| |_|
	Running Debian GNU/Linux Sid (unstable)
batsman dot geo at yahoo dot com

<sel> need help: my first packet to my provider gets lost :-(
<netgod> sel:  dont send the first one, start with #2
* netgod is kidding