From: Christophe Grandsire Date: 2005-10-21T18:45:05+09:00 Subject: Re: [RCR] Cut-based AOP Selon Daniel Schierbeck : > > I just don't think the lesser than character should be used when it > already has a certain meaning. I think the cut keyword is a good idea, > but the < should be a >. Again, that's just my opinion ;) > > cut A > B; end > cut >> obj; end > I disagree. Cuts are, for all purposes, transparent subclasses. They are implemented in such a way, and describing them like that just *makes sense*. So it makes also sense to use < instead of >. > looks to me like Sather's superclassing ability (and even if you don't know Sather, it's just natural if one knows that < means subclassing to take > to mean superclassing), and cuts aren't superclasses, especially since you can have more than one cut per class, and Ruby is supposed to be single-inherited. Calling cuts transparent subclasses really was the thing that made me understand their functionality, and I feel > goes against that definition. I understand why you are proposing such a syntax. I just feel people would get the wrong impression from it. -- Christophe Grandsire. http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr It takes a straight mind to create a twisted conlang.