From: Logan Capaldo <logancapaldo@...>
Date: 2005-05-07T05:51:41+09:00
Subject: Re: .. and ... aren't operators, maybe they should be?

On 5/5/05, Logan Capaldo <logancapaldo@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was just wondering if maybe the range construction syntax could be
> implemented as a set of  operators?
> 
> ie
> 
> class Object
>        def ..(other)
>              Range.new(self, other)
>        end
>        def  ...(other)
>              Range.new(self, other, true)
>        end
> end
> 
> This wouldn't implement the parser much  (I don't think any way) and
> it could be useful for things like
> defining inifinite lazy lists, or other ranges with weird natures
> 
> ie
> 
> class InfRange
>      attr_reader :first
>       def take(n)
>              i = self.first
>              1.upto(n) { yield(i); i = i.succ }
>        end
>       def initialize(n)
>              @first = n
>       end
> end
> 
> class Fixnum
>            def ..(other)
>                  if other.nil?
>                     InfRange.new(self)
>                  else
>                      Range.new(self, other)
>                   end
>           end
>          def ...(other)
>                if other.nil?
>                   InfRange.new(self)
>                else
>                   Range.new(self, other, true)
>               end
>         end
> end
> 
> (1..inf).take(5) do |x|
>          p x
> end
> 
> Ok thats a pretty silly example, but lets say succ was more
> complicated than just self + 1
> 
> Eh maybe I'm crazy and this is useless. Just seems to be in line with
> << and + etc. being changeable.
> 

Nobody likes this idea? Or is it just so dumb its not worthy of a response? ;)