Greg Ewing wrote: > >... > > I've been trying to think of a Pythonic syntax for passing > code blocks to procedures. Mixed feelings on that...not a big fan of the Ruby indiom: 5.dotimes(): print "Hello"; (or whatever it is...something like that) I sort of like the fact that Python figures out what control flow features people need (e.g. foreach and simple generators) and just implements. >... > except that the thunk would have to have write access to > the namespace it's embedded in, perhaps implemented by > sharing the stack frame. If the idea is for it to be a macro feature then yes. But it could be JUST an anonymous implicit thunk. Isn't that how it is in Ruby or Smalltalk? How would the procedure know what variable names to expect in the block? Paul Prescod
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4