Ok, so I too have been bitten by the arity differences between Proc.new and lambda so a few months ago I tried to find the Ruby spec to get a better understand. It was then I came to realize that the only true Ruby spec is defined by the C implementation. While such a spec may allow for rapid improvements to the language it comes at the cost of warts--and Ruby is not without it's fair share. I stumbled across this site today that is possibly the best 'research' compiled on Ruby's closures that I have seen to date. It does a great job of exposing Ruby's warts while at the same time demonstrating the power of closures in Ruby.
The article (it's really just a script you can feed the interpreter!) was encouraging in that it showed me I really should spend a little time in the MRI perusing the source for these sorts of tidbits. I can really appreciate all the work that the groups heading up the various Ruby implementations are doing to formalize a Ruby spec.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
About Me
Tags
- activerecord (1)
- camping (1)
- closures (1)
- cygwin (1)
- denver (1)
- drb (1)
- dsl (1)
- erlang (1)
- erlounge (1)
- fedora (8)
- freedom (1)
- FUDcon (1)
- GEB (3)
- git (1)
- gnu (1)
- gstreamer (1)
- hotmail (1)
- hpricot (1)
- java (1)
- jruby (1)
- kernel (1)
- kino (3)
- laptop (1)
- linux (3)
- machanize (1)
- meta programming (3)
- metaprogramming (1)
- mutt (2)
- open source (3)
- oss (1)
- pitivi (2)
- raleigh.rb (1)
- ruby (13)
- ruby curb hpricot (1)
- rubyconf (1)
- slashdot (1)
- svn (1)
- tux (1)
- ubuntu (1)
- unix (1)
- vim (1)
- vnc (1)
- windows (3)
No comments:
Post a Comment