From: Neville Burnell <Neville.Burnell@...>
Date: 2005-05-13T09:23:29+09:00
Subject: Re: {} vs begin/end [was Re: object loops and what they return]

Oops, # is a comment  ...

Need more coffee ;)

-----Original Message-----
From: Neville Burnell [mailto:Neville.Burnell@bmsoft.com.au] 
Sent: Friday, 13 May 2005 10:22 AM
To: ruby-talk ML
Subject: Re: {} vs begin/end [was Re: object loops and what they return]

> ["pet": "dog", "name": "fred", "drink": "ale"]

I'm a newbie, but how about the obvious:

> ["pet" # "dog", "name" # "fred", "drink" # "ale"]

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Mahurin [mailto:eric_mahurin@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, 13 May 2005 4:29 AM
To: ruby-talk ML
Subject: Re: {} vs begin/end [was Re: object loops and what they return]

--- Ben Giddings <bg-rubytalk@infofiend.com> wrote:
> On Thursday 12 May 2005 13:38, David A. Black wrote:
> > You'll have to fight it out with the ones who wanted braces
> for block
> > literals and hashes to be something else :-)
> 
> I could accept that too -- I would just want one syntax for blocks, a 
> different one for braces, and no confusing middle ground.
> 
> I'd be happy with this for arrays too:
> 
> ["pet" => "dog", "name" => "fred", "drink" => "ale"]
> 
> or
> 
> ["pet": "dog", "name": "fred", "drink": "ale"]
> 
> I just think that {a => b} and {a <= b} are too similar.

I agree.  But, I prefer the braces for code (code is more fundamental
than hashes and deserves {}).  I think this current syntax looks good to
me:

Hash["a" => 100, "b" => 200]



		
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail Mobile
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail