From: Austin Ziegler <Austin.Ziegler@...>
Date: 2004-06-08T06:54:06+09:00
Subject: Re: How to ducktype a Hash?

> dblack@wobblini.evault.com 
> On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Austin Ziegler wrote:
> > Richard Kilmer [mailto:rich@infoether.com] :
> > > Oops...sorry...you are right...it would have to be:
> > > 
> > >   f.{Array}['rich']
> > > 
> > > to make it explicit that you are grouping the {} with the 
> > > method name.  This is only an issue for the operator'ish methods
> > > because methods require the dot in them already.
> > 
> > Maybe:
> > 
> >   f<Array>['rich']
> >   f.<Person>[firstname]
> > 
> > It's ugly enough to discourage its use, but it also calls 
> to mind the
> > syntax for C++ templates (for good or ill) while not being
> > currently-legal Ruby.
> 
> I think it has to be assumed that if Matz adds any type-related stuff,
> it will get very heavy use, ugly or not.  Luckily there's little or no
> precedent for Matz adding ugly stuff :-) but I think this is a case
> where people who want to use it are not going to be deterred by how it
> looks, so I wouldn't want to rely on that effect.  

Well, I still think that this is probably a good compromise, as (1) it
isn't legal Ruby in 1.8, and (2) it will definitely raise warning
hackles to the people who *don't* use it. I seem to recall reading
something in the last year or so that suggests that Matz did add
something to the language that was either *hard* or *ugly* because he
wanted it to be used rarely, but available. I don't remember what it
was.

-austin
--
austin ziegler * austin.ziegler@evault.com