From: Matt Maycock <ummaycoc@...>
Date: 2005-03-24T10:28:24+09:00
Subject: Re: RCR 296: Destructive methods return self

Note that I was just showing something for not using that temporary
variable... not to show how to make it consistent - I have had very
little decent sleep, and this previous seemed like an important email
to write.  apologies.

~Matt


On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 20:26:25 -0500, Matt Maycock <ummaycoc@gmail.com> wrote:
> >   h = obj.strip!
> >   r, c = h[:result], h[:changed]
> >
> > So how can these two become integrated and consistent?
> >
> > T.
> 
> strip_result, strip_changed = *obj.strip!.values_at(:result, :changed)
> 
> or, if you do the following (untested, but assumed true due to my
> infalliability?  we can just assume I'm infalliable for the next few
> lines - then back to normal falliability):
> 
> class Hash
>   def [] (*args)
>     return self.fetch(args[0], self.default) if args.length == 1
>     return self.values_at(*args)
>   end
> end
> 
> then we can have
> strip_result, strip_changed = *obj.strip!()[:result, :changed]
> 
> then, you could have things like
>   if obj.strip!()[:changed] then...
>   end
> 
> or
>   meow = obj.strip!()[:result]
> 
> however, I can see some complaints aesthetics wise about the () in
> there.  What we need is keyboards with more than just <{[()]}> for
> bookends...
> 
> maybe have it hash indexing be syntactically wonderful instead of methody?
> 
> then, we could have
>    hash[|key|]
> and making this not methody means we could do something like
>   meow = obj.strip![|:result|]
> 
> note that just suggestions, and pulling from that other thread... I'm
> okay with typing a bit more.
> 
> ~Matt
> 
> --
> There's no word in the English language for what you do to a dead
> thing to make it stop chasing you.
> 


-- 
There's no word in the English language for what you do to a dead
thing to make it stop chasing you.