"Kent Dahl" <kentda / stud.ntnu.no> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3EF829B4.80051432 / stud.ntnu.no...
> Robert Klemme wrote:
> >
> > "Kent Dahl" <kentda / stud.ntnu.no> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > news:3EF8143F.45CFEEDD / stud.ntnu.no...
> > > Since instance_eval may take a block, would it make sense to change
the
> > > above error message to something like:
> > >  in `instance_eval': wrong argument type Proc (expected String or
block)
> >
> > IMHO this is not correct.  You might call me pricky but a block can
never
> > be a method parameter.  You can either have a block associated with a
> > method invocation OR have a proc as parameter.  Of course an
associated
> > block can be easily converted into a proc for subsequent invocations.
I'd
> > rather change it to
> >
> > in `instance_eval': wrong argument type Proc (expected String or no
args
> > and associated block)
>
> Point taken. For brevity I think I would prefer simply:
>  in `instance_eval': wrong argument type Proc (expected String or
> associated block)
>
> The 'no args' bits feels like line noise reading it.

Sounds good.  Now that that's settled, who's gonna put it into source
code? :-)

    robert