[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ruby-talk
Subject:    Re: ANN: Free-form-operators patch
From:       ts <decoux () moulon ! inra ! fr>
Date:       2004-10-14 11:21:38
Message-ID: 200410141121.i9EBLYe23364 () moulon ! inra ! fr
[Download RAW message or body]

>>>>> "N" == Nikolai Weibull <ruby-talk@pcppopper.org> writes:

N> matz or any of the language designers.  This worries some people, but
N> I personally don't see an good reason for worry, if done correctly (i.e.
N> not introducing bugs or breakage).  Remember, Ruby allows you to add and
N> redefine methods in base classes, so if you want to wreak havoc, the
N> tools are readily available even without user-defined operators.

 Well, for me an operator is defined by
  * it's type (unary, binary, tertiary)
  * associativity (right, left, non-assoc)
  * precedence

 If I can't define all of this, it's useless for me. If I can define it, my
 user-operator will probably conflict with the same user-operator defined
 by someone else.

 Like has said matz, this will freeze ruby (matz don't have the possibility
 to add new operator).

 And sincerely, I don't want that ruby finish like APL with %$@%


Guy Decoux


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]