[#1579] arity bug? — "Christoph" <chr_news@...>
Hi,
5 messages
2003/10/05
[#1588] FreeBSD problem with processes — Laurent Sansonetti <pinux@...>
Hi all,
1 message
2003/10/07
[#1591] Re: Yielding to a block from a proc? — george.marrows@...
> > Is this right? Is this pathological? Is it a bug? Is there
6 messages
2003/10/08
[#1596] PATCH: Revive NextStep, OpenStep, Rhapsody ports — Eric Sunshine <sunshine@...>
Hello,
7 messages
2003/10/09
[#1597] Re: PATCH: Revive NextStep, OpenStep, Rhapsody ports
— matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
2003/10/09
Hi,
[#1600] CVS access — Sean Russell <ser@...>
Hiya,
8 messages
2003/10/09
[#1611] set_trace_func/Array#fetch error — "Nathaniel Talbott" <nathaniel@...>
I've reduced the error I reported in ruby-talk:84013 to the following code:
17 messages
2003/10/11
[#1612] Re: set_trace_func/Array#fetch error
— ts <decoux@...>
2003/10/11
>>>>> "N" == Nathaniel Talbott <nathaniel@talbott.ws> writes:
[#1616] Re: set_trace_func/Array#fetch error
— "Nathaniel Talbott" <nathaniel@...>
2003/10/11
ts [mailto:decoux@moulon.inra.fr] wrote:
[#1617] Re: set_trace_func/Array#fetch error
— ts <decoux@...>
2003/10/11
>>>>> "N" == Nathaniel Talbott <nathaniel@talbott.ws> writes:
[#1618] Re: set_trace_func/Array#fetch error
— "Nathaniel Talbott" <nathaniel@...>
2003/10/11
ts [mailto:decoux@moulon.inra.fr] wrote:
[#1634] stringy range bug — "Christoph" <chr_news@...>
Hi,
6 messages
2003/10/15
[#1640] SystemStackError in embedding — Sentinel <sentinel27@...>
Hi, I am just now trying to embed ruby into my apprication
8 messages
2003/10/18
Re: Yielding to a block from a proc?
From:
Joel VanderWerf <vjoel@...>
Date:
2003-10-07 17:43:01 UTC
List:
ruby-core #1590
Austin Ziegler wrote:
> On irc://irc.freenode.net/#ruby-lang tonight we were discussing procs. Among
> the discussion (which included unease about the differing semantics of proc
> {}
> and Proc.new {}), the question came up about passing a block to a proc.
> Apparently, all of the following cause compile/syntax errors:
>
> proc { |a, &b| }
> Proc.new { |a, &b| }
> proc { yield }[] { "block given" }
> Proc.new { yield }[] { "block given" }
>
> More disturbing are the semantics of Proc#call:
>
> proc { yield }.call { "block given" }
> Proc.new { yield }.call { "block given" }
>
> These both result in a LocalJumpError. So it's not legal to use Proc#[], but
> Proc#call considers this legal with an impossible-to-fix error.
>
> A parameter MAY be a proc and there's no problem with that.
>
> Is this right? Is this pathological? Is it a bug? Is there a reason that
> this
> isn't possible, other than the fact that it's pathological to want to do so?
I don't think it's pathological to want to do this:
class << self
instance_eval {
define_method(:foo) { |a, &b| b[a] }
}
end
#The above should have the same effect as:
#def self.foo(a, &b); b[a]; end
p(foo(3) {|x| x+1})