Why Ruby?

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Nick Sabalausky" <a at a.a> wrote in message 
news:ie34p4$dgk$1 at digitalmars.com...
> "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator at gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:ie2sv2$2thb$1 at digitalmars.com...
>> We already have a D block syntax!
>>
>> =====
>>
>> void myfun(void delegate() lol) {
>>        lol();
>> }
>>
>> void main() {
>>        myfun = {
>>                assert(0, "lol");
>>        };
>> }
>>
>> ======
>>
>> Totally compiles. :-P
>>
>> It works with delegate arguments too!
>>
>> ========
>>
>> void myfun(void delegate(string) lol) {
>>        lol("say it ");
>> }
>>
>> void main() {
>>        myfun = (string what) {
>>                assert(0, what ~ " lol");
>>        };
>> }
>> ==========
>>
>> Whoa.
>>
>>
>>
>> (note that while I'm only a little serious here - that actually
>> looks fine to me - I don't think the language needs a change
>> here. }); doesn't bother me one bit.)
>
> I'm sure that's going to disappear when D's properties get implemented as 
> intended.
>

And FWIW, it looks like operator-overload-abuse to me.