From: gabriele renzi <rff_rff@...>
Date: 2004-09-04T21:50:15+09:00
Subject: Re: OK... :) question about hash and array literals

David A. Black ha scritto:

> Hi --
> 
> On Sat, 4 Sep 2004, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> 
> 
>>Hi,
>>
>>In message "Re: OK... :) question about hash and array literals"
>>    on Sat, 4 Sep 2004 12:54:52 +0900, Hal Fulton <hal9000@hypermetrics.com> writes:
>>
>>|Is there a method that does get called (I think not), or could
>>|in theory such a thing be implemented?
>>
>>Not planned, just because changing semantics of literals are too
>>dangerous, as dangerous as macros for my eyes.
> 
> 
> This is just a thought (not even an "idea" :-) but what about a
> %-style constructor:
> 
>   %H{ k1 => v1, k2 => v2, ... }
> 

please no.
This is just my very little unvaluable opinion, but %-stuff literals are 
  one of the few things I don't like about ruby.
Nothing is telling me what they mean, It's something a user can't have 
control over and there are subtle differencies beetween one and another 
that are just... well.. _too_ subtle.


But as I write I'm getting the idea you're suggesting overridable % 
constructors? If that is the suggestion.. well, interesting :)