From: "David A. Black" <dblack@...>
Date: 2005-10-03T07:00:24+09:00
Subject: Re: C++ equivs in Ruby

Hi --

On Mon, 3 Oct 2005, Devin Mullins wrote:

> David A. Black wrote:
>
>>   x = 123
>> 
>> x holds the immediate value 123, rather than a reference to it, which
>> is the rationale Matz has always given for not having x++ (i.e., it
>> would be equivalent to doing 123++ and that would make no sense).
T>
> I don't think that's sufficient, else x += 1 would be equivalent to 123 += 1.

Not necessarily.  There's no cause and effect link here; each thing is
decided by Matz.  I was talking about my impression over the years of
Matz's rationale.

Actually, as I re-research it, I see several objections to ++ on the
part of Matz, even for cases where the variable does not hold an
immediate value (e.g., strings).  I tend to agree; I think if you did:

   str = "abc"
   str++

neither possibility (the variable str being reassigned, or having ++
be a succ! equivalent) would really fit.  (The parser *could* do it,
of course; I'm talking about the logic and design.)


David

-- 
David A. Black
dblack@wobblini.net