From: Robert Klemme <bob.news@...>
Date: 2004-10-12T00:49:41+09:00
Subject: Re: ANN: Free-form-operators patch


"Martin DeMello" <martindemello@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:fLxad.691462$M95.317435@pd7tw1no...
> gabriele renzi <rff_rff@remove-yahoo.it> wrote:
> >
> > sure, but a method has a name wich explains what it does, an operator
> > does not. I understand that this thinking brings to "let's remove all
> > operators!" mood, but actually having just some is ok, specially if
they
> > have a widely used meaning (say, + )
>
> Actually, when you're trying to implement domain-specific languages atop
> ruby, the operators often have a well-defined meaning; it just comes
> from the domain rather than the larger body of 'programming languages'.
> For instance, it might be nice to define a financial maths class with
> $12 creating a money amount literal (what, no prefix operators? :)). It
> also gives the community a chance to experiment with symbols for common
> idioms (for instance, a ||+ b for elementwise array addition) - if the
> symbols aren't intuitive they'll just die a natural death.

But isn't a sub language integration feature the more appropriate approach
in this case?

Kind regards

    robert