From: Michael Neumann <mneumann@...>
Date: 2008-04-25T03:56:50+09:00
Subject: Re: [RCR] Drop :: as a . synonym

David A. Black wrote:
> Hi --
> 
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, Michael Neumann wrote:
> 
>> Eric Mahurin wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 9:21 AM, David A. Black <dblack@rubypal.com
>>> <mailto:dblack@rubypal.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     Hi --
>>>
>>>     I'd like to request the deprecation/removal of :: as a synonym 
>>> for the
>>>     method-calling dot. I think it's a good opportunity to take out
>>>     something that Ruby doesn't need. We've already got the dot, which
>>>     always means "send a message", and :: already means something else
>>>     (constant resolution).
>>>
>>
>> And think about this usage scenario, which is where "::" really helps to
>> mask dynamic class generation:
>>
>>  module A
>>    class X
>>      C = 1
>>    end
>>
>>    def self.GenClass(*args)
>>      Class.new(X) # do something here
>>    end
>>  end
>>
>>  A::X
>>  A::X::C
>>  A::GenClass(1, 2, 3)
>>  A::GenClass(1, 2, 3)::C
>>
>> Basically you can treat a method that returns a new class like a class,
>> which is beautiful.
> 
> But why have a second method-calling operator, if the first one will
> work? (A.GenClass(1,2,3)::C). Also, all of the use-cases we've seen in
> response to my RCR seem to involve some rather specialized
> class/method interplay. I'm still not convinced that having :: as a
> superset of . isn't a very loose fit for the language.

Personally I prefer

   A::GenClass(1,2,3)::C

over

   A.GenClass(1,2,3)::C

Here "GenClass" should be seen as a "dynamic class",
something in-between a class (constant) and a method :)

Regards,

   Michael