Re: Re: [scala-debate] Re: [scala-debate] Re: [scala-debate] forbidding “dangling” local blocks in scala

[Naftoli Gugenheim]

+1 for locally, if it's so necessary. Maybe it's worthwhile to add it to Predef without deprecating standalone blocks, so one can use whatever style he prefers? Although I myself would probably use it.


-------------------------------------
Kris Nuttycombe<kris.nuttycombe@...> wrote:

On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 7:56 AM, Seth Tisue <seth@...> wrote:

>>>>>> "martin" == martin odersky <martin.odersky@...> writes:
>
>  martin> Then we'd deprecate local blocks in class and object templates,
>  martin> and we'd require instead to write
>
>  martin>   initialize { ... }
>
>  martin> This would work, except that I am not 100% sure yet whether
>  martin> initialize is the best name. Are there other suggestions?
>
> locally

+1

[Ricky Clarkson]

Your Peek is broken.

The subject of the email you sent is:

Re: [scala-debate] Re: [scala-debate] Re: [scala-debate] Re:
[scala-debate] forbidding “dangling†local blocks in scala

I will order a wider monitor ready for your next email. :)

2009/10/7 Naftoli Gugenheim <naftoligug@...>:

> +1 for locally, if it's so necessary. Maybe it's worthwhile to add it to Predef without deprecating standalone blocks, so one can use whatever style he prefers? Although I myself would probably use it.
>
>
> -------------------------------------
> Kris Nuttycombe<kris.nuttycombe@...> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 7:56 AM, Seth Tisue <seth@...> wrote:
>>>>>>> "martin" == martin odersky <martin.odersky@...> writes:
>>
>>  martin> Then we'd deprecate local blocks in class and object templates,
>>  martin> and we'd require instead to write
>>
>>  martin>   initialize { ... }
>>
>>  martin> This would work, except that I am not 100% sure yet whether
>>  martin> initialize is the best name. Are there other suggestions?
>>
>> locally
>
> +1
>

--
Ricky Clarkson
Java Programmer, AD Holdings
[phone]
Skype: ricky_clarkson
Google Talk: ricky.clarkson@...

[Andrew Gaydenko]

On Wednesday 07 October 2009 20:03:46 Naftoli Gugenheim wrote:
> +1 for locally, if it's so necessary. Maybe it's worthwhile to add it to
>  Predef without deprecating standalone blocks, so one can use whatever
>  style he prefers?

For my eyes any additional degree of freedom results in more confusion. At
this POV deprecating is a good thing...

>  Although I myself would probably use it.

... especially as far as nobody still rejected this Martin's suggestion in
common ;-)

+1 for 'locally'.

[Kevin Wright-4]

how about resultof, or resultOf?


On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Andrew Gaydenko <a@...> wrote:

> On Wednesday 07 October 2009 20:03:46 Naftoli Gugenheim wrote:
>> +1 for locally, if it's so necessary. Maybe it's worthwhile to add it to
>>  Predef without deprecating standalone blocks, so one can use whatever
>>  style he prefers?
>
> For my eyes any additional degree of freedom results in more confusion. At
> this POV deprecating is a good thing...
>
>>  Although I myself would probably use it.
>
> ... especially as far as nobody still rejected this Martin's suggestion in
> common ;-)
>
> +1 for 'locally'.
>

[Daniel Sobral]

Well... since the point is to run a side-effectful block of code returning Unit, I don't see that as a match. If you want to use the result of the block for something, then it is not dangling, and there's no problem.

On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Kevin Wright <kev.lee.wright@...> wrote:

how about resultof, or resultOf?

On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Andrew Gaydenko <a@...> wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 October 2009 20:03:46 Naftoli Gugenheim wrote:
>> +1 for locally, if it's so necessary. Maybe it's worthwhile to add it to
>>  Predef without deprecating standalone blocks, so one can use whatever
>>  style he prefers?
>
> For my eyes any additional degree of freedom results in more confusion. At
> this POV deprecating is a good thing...
>
>>  Although I myself would probably use it.
>
> ... especially as far as nobody still rejected this Martin's suggestion in
> common ;-)
>
> +1 for 'locally'.
>

--
Daniel C. Sobral

Something I learned in academia: there are three kinds of academic reviews: review by name, review by reference and review by value.

[Kevin Wright-4]

That'll teach me to scan threads too quickly... Victor beat me to it as well!


On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 9:55 PM, Daniel Sobral <dcsobral@...> wrote:

> Well... since the point is to run a side-effectful block of code returning
> Unit, I don't see that as a match. If you want to use the result of the
> block for something, then it is not dangling, and there's no problem.
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Kevin Wright <kev.lee.wright@...>
> wrote:
>>
>> how about resultof, or resultOf?
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Andrew Gaydenko <a@...> wrote:
>> > On Wednesday 07 October 2009 20:03:46 Naftoli Gugenheim wrote:
>> >> +1 for locally, if it's so necessary. Maybe it's worthwhile to add it
>> >> to
>> >>  Predef without deprecating standalone blocks, so one can use whatever
>> >>  style he prefers?
>> >
>> > For my eyes any additional degree of freedom results in more confusion.
>> > At
>> > this POV deprecating is a good thing...
>> >
>> >>  Although I myself would probably use it.
>> >
>> > ... especially as far as nobody still rejected this Martin's suggestion
>> > in
>> > common ;-)
>> >
>> > +1 for 'locally'.
>> >
>
>
>
> --
> Daniel C. Sobral
>
> Something I learned in academia: there are three kinds of academic reviews:
> review by name, review by reference and review by value.
>