[ruby-core:32719] Re: [Ruby 1.9-Feature#3845][Open] "in" infix operator

Hi,

On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 9:16 AM, "Martin J. D=FCrst" <[e-mail]=
>wrote:

> I would understand that if it were [a, b, c].included? x
> But it's include?, so the order seems just fine. Easy to read as
> "does [a, b, c] include x?". Any other order would feel strange, wouldn't
> it?
>
> Also, an 'in?' method on Object has been proposed, so that you can write
> x.in? [a, b, c]
> That's very short, and fully object oriented pure Ruby, no syntactic suga=
r
> necessary.


I totally agree : in as keyword is too different than the rest of Ruby
syntax.
I fear this kind of add would make Ruby syntax cryptic...


>
>    3) it is inefficient; new array object is created every times
>>
>
> That's a problem for a good compiler/interpreter. There are many cases in
> Ruby where similar stuff happen, and nevertheless, many people are using
> Ruby. If it really needs to be fast, why not use C or so?
>
>
What about
  x.in?(a, b, c)

The Ruby naive implementation is really simple
  class Object
    def in?(*collections)
      collections.any?{|c| c.include?(self) }
    end
  end
but I guess a C version could add optimizations (but are they needed ?)


Regards,

=C9tienne


--=20
=C9tienne Vallette d'Osia