Pass a block instead of a Proc object. Only Button implemented as a matter of principle

[dovadi]

I prefer this:

button.down do
  puts "button down"
end

button.up do
  puts "button up"
end

instead of:

button_down = Proc.new do
  puts "button down"
end

button_up = Proc.new do
  puts "button up"
end

button.down do
  button_down
end

button.up do
  button_up
end

Issue: backward compatibility

[dam5s]

I wonder why it was not using blocks from the beginning, so I'm going to let Austin merge this. There might be a reason... I don't know.

[austinbv]

I like this a lot I just don't like changing the interface of buttons, it would be nice if you could pass them a proc, or yield a block.

[dovadi]

OK, it's your call, but again I would choose for a block. I wouldn't maintain the proc option just for backward compatibility. In my view it would introduce extra complexibility, a lot of extra test code to maintain and this for a very young library with, I assume, flexible users who would easily adapt to the new api :-)

[austinbv]

Very valid point

[jcasimir]

For the audience I work with (kids), I think the block is easier to understand. They're already familiar with them from core Ruby (dealing with enumerations, etc).

To us as experienced programmers, the difference between a Proc and block is actually quite small. But to new devs this might very well be the first time they ever see Proc.

[austinbv]

With that said let's merge this in and release the gem.