From: Richard Drake <rdrake98@...>
Date: 2006-01-26T06:08:12+09:00
Subject: Re: readable and provocative & daring

> Sorry, should have realized that you can make your own version
> of & but not of &&.

Yes, and it was the ability to extend & to String that started as a
'what if?' this time last week and ended with some serious questions
about how wide the utility of this version may be. Or perhaps Ruby
veterans would vote it down for reasons I might not currently grasp?

Richard

----

Ruby for laser purity