Re: New block syntax

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Sean E. Russell wrote:

> On Wednesday 30 March 2005 07:55, David A. Black wrote:
>> I find the visual reliance on the : separator as an indicator of
>> constructor behavior obscure and fragile.  But also, in more practical
>
> Ok.
>
>> terms, I wonder what would happen to something like:
>>
>>     a = SomeClass.new
>>     b = 100
>>
>>     { a => "apple", b => "orange" }
>>
>> It couldn't be [a:'apple', b:'orange'], of course.  I think that means
>
> Why not?

Are you suggesting that:

   a = SomeClass.new
   { a => "apple" }

should be treated like:

   a = SomeClass.new
   { a:'apple }      # i.e., key :a

Maybe you misunderstood my "couldn't"?  By which I meant: surely no
one would want the 'a' in { a => "apple" } to be read as a symbol :-)

> I also sort of like the re-use of [] here, and reserving {} for lambda
> expressions.  This sort of un-perlifies Ruby, where you have different
> enclosing and prefix tokens for every different kind of variable.

Can we un-perlify the discussion? :-)  This isn't about Perl -- really
and truly.  I'd rather just ignore Perl, in thinking about Ruby, than
use Perl as a kind of anti-shopping list of things that have to be
expunged from Ruby for Ruby to be Ruby.

> Furthermore, a language shouldn't be afraid to change.  If we're afraid to
> improve Ruby, someone will do to Ruby what Ruby has done to Perl.

I'm ready to put that one to bed too.  No one's suggesting stagnation
(though I'm getting used to being accused of it :-)

Whoops, I erased what you said about it being Matz who really decides,
but yeah :-)


David

-- 
David A. Black
[e-mail]