[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damian Conway) writes: > The last thought on the problem that Larry's shared with me was that there > may need to be a special case for allowing a single &block parameter after > the slurpy
And the Rubyometer creeps up another few notches... (Gosh, you'd almost think that Matz had already thought through some of these issues, wouldn't you? ;) -- Will your long-winded speeches never end? What ails you that you keep on arguing? -- Job 16:3