[#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:
"Christoph" <chr_news@...>
Date:
2003-10-09 19:29:17 UTC
List:
ruby-core #1601
Sean Russell wrote:
...
> 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
^^^
Ditto.
> 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.
Currently the ``yielding block'' is frozen at (method or proc) definition time
and it is impossible to change it afterwards (this is not exactly a scoping issue
in my book) - if one longs for more flexibility one can explicitly pass Procs as
parameters around and use Proc::call instead of yield - i.e. we already have
Procs passed to Procs with the scoping rules you describe.
/Christoph