Methods and blocks - not that clear when blocks passed into methods

[superjacent]

Coming from other programming languages, notably Basic based, a little Java & C++, I find that passing blocks into methods is a little cryptic. What I mean is that when reading a method description (definition) there is no reference made to the fact that a block could be passed in as an argument. To me, it appears as if the method has to be read in conjunction with how the method is actually called in order to know if a block is passed or not. If my assertion is correct then the actual method call(s) in source code could be 100's of lines away from the method definition.

Is this how things are or are there some techniques to smooth this process somewhat?

[devbanana]

You can define a method like:

def foo a, b, &block
end

That specifies that a block can be passed in (though isn't required).

But true, you can just call yield within a method without having an argument like that. Hopefully the description of the method though mentions it.

[superjacent]

You can define a method like:

def foo a, b, &block
end

That specifies that a block can be passed in (though isn't required).

But true, you can just call yield within a method without having an argument like that. Hopefully the description of the method though mentions it.

I prefer this way, at least it's explicit and suits the way my mind works.

[7stud]

cross posted on other forums

[superjacent]

cross posted on other forums

A couple of points come to mind:-

• What is your point?
• What value did you add to this thread?