Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 542245
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 13, 20262026-05-13T10:25:35+00:00 2026-05-13T10:25:35+00:00

Ruby 1.9 gives the ability to define variables that are just local to a

  • 0

Ruby 1.9 gives the ability to define variables that are just local to a block and do not close over variables of the same name in an outer scope:

x = 10
proc { |;x|
    x = 20
}.call
x #=> 10

I would like to have this behaviour as default for some blocks I define – without having to use the |;x, y, z| syntax (note the semicolon).

I do not think Ruby allows this natively but is it possible to hack this functionality?

I have one solution currently but it’s quite ugly as it requires checking to see which locals have changed at the end of a block and then reverting them to their values prior to the block. I do not mind if your solution requires specifying which variables are block-local at the start of the block i.e scope(:x) { x = 20 }

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-13T10:25:35+00:00Added an answer on May 13, 2026 at 10:25 am

    The solution I am choosing is based on bobbywilson0’s idea. Here is how it works:

    x = 99
    y = 98
    
    scope { |x, y|
        x = 20
        y = 30
    }
    
    x #=> 99
    y #=> 98 
    

    This is useful as the variables used in the scope are created at the start of the scope and do not close over any variables defined outside it, they are also GC’d at the end of the scope.

    Here is the implementation:

    def scope(&block)
        num_required = block.arity >= 0 ? block.arity : ~block.arity
        yield *([nil] * num_required)
    end
    

    This solution also takes default values into account making it functionally equivalent to a let* in lisp.

    scope { |x = 20, z = (x * 3)| 
        x #=> 20
        z #=> 60
    }
    

    I blogged on it here: http://banisterfiend.wordpress.com/2010/01/07/controlling-object-scope-in-ruby-1-9/

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

Ruby setters—whether created by (c)attr_accessor or manually—seem to be the only methods that need
Ruby's standard popen3 module does not work on Windows. Is there a maintained replacement
Ruby on Rails does not do multithreaded request-responses very well, or at least, ActiveRecord
Ruby on Rails has magic timestamping fields that are automatically updated when a record
Given following Ruby statements: (Read input and store each word in array removing spaces
Ruby has two different exceptions mechanisms: Throw/Catch and Raise/Rescue. Why do we have two?
Ruby has a wealth of conditional constructs, including if / unless , while /
Ruby can add methods to the Number class and other core types to get
Ruby on Rails has a lot of ways to generate JavaScript. Particularly when it
Ruby is truly memory-hungry - but also worth every single bit. What do you

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.