From: "David A. Black" <dblack@...>
Date: 2005-08-06T23:08:33+09:00
Subject: Re: new block notation

Hi --

On Sat, 6 Aug 2005, Trans wrote:

>
> Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> In message "Re: new block notation"
>>     on Fri, 5 Aug 2005 19:56:06 +0900, "Trans" <transfire@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> |Nah, just use the _collection_ brackets for both array and hash. The
>> |parser can tell them apart:
>> |
>> |  # array
>> |  [ a, b, c ]
>> |
>> |  # hash
>> |  [ a=>x, b=>y, c=>z ]
>> |  [ a: x, b: y, c: z ]
>>
>> Yes, if it isn't empty.
>
> But that's easy enough to remedy:
>
>  [:]  # empty hash
>
> That said, I realize its atypical from most other languages. But Ruby
> isn't most other languages. Ruby is a fully OOP agile language. Ask
> yourself, what is a Hash? In a very real sense (real as in utility) it
> is an Array of Associations. This is not to say I'm suggesting hashes
> neccessarily be fully OOPized in this way, but it does show at least,
> the syntax above is quite sensible. Not to mention the clarity it would
> give to blocks/lambdas. Alas, I imagine that such a change would be
> considered huge, and for that reason alone (although I imagine both
> syntaxes could be supported in a transition), unfortunately, Not Going
> To Happen(tm).

I'm still not seeing how

   [:]

or

   [=>]

conveys the notion of 'emptiness' better than

   {}

Maybe it's just my new-punctuation allergy....


David

-- 
David A. Black
dblack@wobblini.net