From: "David A. Black" <dblack@...>
Date: 2004-09-28T22:11:39+09:00
Subject: Re: Best name for "this method" ?

Hi --

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004, trans.  (T. Onoma) wrote:

> On Tuesday 28 September 2004 08:12 am, David A. Black wrote:
> > Hi --
> >
> > On Tue, 28 Sep 2004, trans.  (T. Onoma) wrote:
> > >    h = { a: 1, b: 2 }
> > >    h.a  #=> 1
> > >    h.b  #=> 2
> > >
> > > That would be sweet. And would make the above possible without a new
> > > class. I know, method name clash is bad --and there's little one can do
> > > to get around it. Perhaps alternate notation?
> > >
> > >    h:a
> > >    h:b
> >
> > What's wrong with h[:a] ?
> 
> Blech?  No, it's okay.  Having to use three chars when one will do is not so 
> sweet.  But not big deal.  So I take it back.  Alternate is not thought out 
> and probably blech for other reasons.

I know it's tempting to want everything to be compressed, and to use
(low) character-count as a measure of success, but compressing things
can backfire.  They get too compressed :-)  For example, I believe
your notation would run aground on this:

  cond ? h : a

vs.

  cond ? h:a : b

or

  cond?  h:a:b     # what's what here?

etc.


David

-- 
David A. Black
dblack@wobblini.net