In Perl 6 all blocks will become closures. But with semantic sugar to make them tend to act in ways that C programmers find familiar.
Ruby already goes farther along this line than Perl 5, if not as far as Perl 6 plans to.
Incidentally my pet theory on some of this thread is that Larry Wall is onto something when he says that humans have built in wiring to decode a certain amount of syntax. (Like most people who get hold of a good idea, he can be accused of taking it too far...) The more "academic" languages tend to realize (with Lisp being an extreme) that encoding some things as syntax and others in terms of a computing model causes all sorts of artificial barriers that cost you and buy you nothing on a theoretical level, and so they tend to use less semi-naturalistic syntax. Which is completely not a problem if you are capable of building a layer of abstraction, understanding it, then building on that. But is a huge barrier for many people you find in the programming world who whether for reasons of inclination or capacity tend to draw a comprehensional barrier between "this is the language" and "this is what has been built within this language". (A barrier roughly corresponding to the division between what they follow by linguistic reflex, and what is actually thought about.)
Cheers,
Ben