From: Matt Maycock <ummaycoc@...>
Date: 2005-03-24T13:18:13+09:00
Subject: Re: RCR 296: Destructive methods return self

> Yet that doesn't seem at all useful for non-destructive methods.
> "obj->strip" would be pointless, I think. It would be more useful if
> any method could act destructively. As I suggested earlier: "obj!sort".
> Perhaps a better notation for this  would be your suggestion
> "obj->sort". But this is all quite speculative given that matz has
> never seemed too keen in pursing generalized in-place modification.

But it is useful if you are not self-destructive (ie, you are still
doing side effects, but effecting the world instead of just self).

Matz may be against generalized in-place modifications (so am I - I'm
a haskell kid at heart), but it does get used.  When efficiency is
needed, fp is dropped for scripting, and then for more efficient
scripting, and then for C.  But what I'm suggesting has nothing to do
with in place scripting, but is really just a sort of with statement,
but I think rather more elegant than the kind that comes with VB, and
is syntactically pleasant.

I think that without a stricter type system, having the interpretter
make good use of turning a invocation into a modification might be
harder than you think (maybe even in general impossible - but good
enough in practice)  - leaving the details up to us at this particular
level might be a good idea.

~Matt

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