I agree this is weird, but I think it's largely an analogy issue: Ruby and Crystal both explicitly document blocks as not being closures, even when they can be

I agree this is weird, but I think it's largely an analogy issue: Ruby and Crystal both explicitly document blocks as not being closures, even when they can be converted into closures. They're their own weird thing. Crystal also documents that it will fail if the block contains return or break statements[1]. [1]: https://crystal-lang.org/reference/1.13/syntax_and_semantics/capturing_blocks.html#break-and-next https://crystal-lang.org/reference/1.13/syntax_and_semantics...