[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Iain 'Spoon' Truskett) writes:
> So why does Ruby have so little trouble with it?
Because the Ruby designer(s) don't have fifteen years of Perl experience
muddling up their heads. :)
But seriously, Ruby does something a little tricky here that Perl 6
should probably *not* follow, despite my protestations: it treats a
block (essentially) as a special, seperate type of argument. You have
a receiver, than a mmethod, then its arguments, then an optional
block. This is syntactically beautiful if you're just passing a single
block, (such as to map, grep, sort, etc.) mildly ugly if you want to
pass some arguments and a block, and really very ugly indeed if you
want to pass two blocks. And that's probably something we would want to
do.
Hmm. But we'd want to be throwing multiple blocks around only in rarer
cases, so maybe we should optimize for beautifying the common cases at
the risk of ugliness in the less common cases. Or maybe we should
take the path of least overall ugliness. I don't know.
--
Putting heated bricks close to the news.admin.net-abuse.* groups.
-- Megahal (trained on asr), 1998-11-06
