[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: ruby-core
Subject: Re: ANN: Free-form-operators patch
From: Markus <markus () reality ! com>
Date: 2004-10-12 16:19:39
Message-ID: 1097597969.20674.88.camel () lapdog ! reality ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
Sean --
Thanks you. I don't mind the occasional blind and fruitless quest,
but it's always nice to know what others are thinking. Heck, I even
find the rabid criticism useful, but I have to admit that this kind of
feedback is much more pleasant.
-- Markus
On Tue, 2004-10-12 at 04:16, Sean E. Russell wrote:
> On Monday 11 October 2004 20:09, Markus wrote:
> > I have no real preference between them; unlike the issue Proc.new()
> > automatically exploding single array argument (which would break a fair
> > amount of production code for me) this experimental patch is something I
> > started on because others seemed to be wanting it (or at least, wanting
> > things that it could give them). Do you wish me to continue with it?
> > Take it in some other direction? Drop it?
> >
> > My goal here is to try to pay back some of what I owe ruby, so your
> > advise would be welcome.
>
> For the record, Markus, I'm all for the patch. I've been fantasizing about
> an "infix Ruby" for a while; my own argument is that algebraic notation is a
> core characteristic of Ruby, and that the limitation restricting the ad-hoc
> creation of infix operators is purely arbitrary, especially when you
> consider that Ruby currently has a half-baked version already. You define
> the behavior for some infix operators, but you can't create new ones.
>
> In any case, my arguments don't matter much, but I wanted to let you know
> that I approve of and appreciate your attempts.
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic