On Wednesday 08 May 2002 05:57, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
>  On Wed, 8 May 2002, Buggs wrote:
>  > On Tuesday 07 May 2002 16:24, Glen Starchman wrote:
>  > > On Tuesday 07 May 2002 02:47 am, Donal K. Fellows wrote:
>  > > "hello".each(3) { |x| print ("chars=%s", x)
>  >
>  > what about
>  > "hello".each(3)->x  {print ("chars=%s", x)}
>  > if you still have "->" spare
>  > think
>  > x <-"hello".each(3) {print ("chars=%s", x)}
>  > is funny
> 
>  putting the block parameters at the beginning of the block syntax like
>  {|x| ... } is well-justified: those parameters belong to the block, not to
>  the call. This is why the same kind of syntax was chosen in languages like
>  Smalltalk, Self, and Ruby.
> 
>  The params belong to the block because it makes it easier to pass the
>  blocks around from call to call, or store them in variables.

Well of course that is a fine point,
but how does one explain from an aesthetic view
how the parameter gets its values ?
And also there is the isomorphy with methods' parameters being outside
of the block (at least in Ruby i think).

Buggs