> Too bad ruby stopped short of doing the trivial obvious thing and just making blocks be regular values. Instead the language is complicated by special syntax and functions for sending and receiving blocks, and bizarrely limited by the inability to do anything with a block literal other than send it.
Blocks are syntactical structures. Your statement is like saying that the parens and commas that are part of the argument list should be "regular values".
I'm not sure what you want to do with a "block literal". If you want to do something with the closure represented by the block, then reify the block into an object to pass it around, wrap it, introspect etc.
I think a lot of confusion about blocks in Ruby is really inconsistent terminology. Using "block" to mean the syntactic expression of a closure, i.e. part of the method call syntax I think helps to disambiguate the syntactical nature of closures from the closure reified into an object that you can pass around, call, etc. (i.e. an instance of the Proc class)
Blocks are syntactical structures. Your statement is like saying that the parens and commas that are part of the argument list should be "regular values".
I'm not sure what you want to do with a "block literal". If you want to do something with the closure represented by the block, then reify the block into an object to pass it around, wrap it, introspect etc.
I think a lot of confusion about blocks in Ruby is really inconsistent terminology. Using "block" to mean the syntactic expression of a closure, i.e. part of the method call syntax I think helps to disambiguate the syntactical nature of closures from the closure reified into an object that you can pass around, call, etc. (i.e. an instance of the Proc class)