Re: ANN: Free-form-operators patch

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.