[#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:
Sean Russell <ser@...>
Date:
2003-10-08 21:39:22 UTC
List:
ruby-core #1595
On Wednesday 08 October 2003 16:00, Christoph wrote: > > > Though this is fairly weird (does anyone use it?), it's entirely in > > > keeping with the fact that blocks have access to the blocks that were > > > passed into their scope: > > > > How does that matter? > > It seems to me that George gave a good explanation why passing > blocks to procs doesn't make sense in the first place, since this > already happens, albeit differently, anyway? I wasn't arguing the usefulness of being able to pass blocks to procs. In fact, I as much as said that I agree with George on this topic, insofar as I have any opinion at all. I was proposing that the argument that there would be scoping conflicts with Procs passed to Procs is a fallacy, in that they would be subject to the same scoping rules that other objects are subject to. I bothered to point this out in case someone does point out a really good reason to allow passing procs to procs -- AFAICS, scoping issues aren't a /technical/ reason why it couldn't be implemented. --- SER