From: ara.t.howard@...
Date: 2006-06-30T05:28:25+09:00
Subject: Re: << for Hash?

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006, Dean Strelau wrote:

> That's because the semantics make sense in the context of Set. Set acts like
> an unordered list, not like a Hash. There's certanily some hand-waiving
> going on to make << work with the Hash, but as has been shown, that's not
> too tough. IMO, appending '5' to a list of numbers {1,2,3,4} makes sense
> while appending a key/value pair doesn't.

imho both appending to set and appending to hash make equal sense/nonsense as
both containers are unorder and have no 'end'.

incidentally, '<<' is not a pure append operator in ruby

   class << self
   end

   42 << 2

   string = <<hdoc
     foobar
   hdoc

food for thought.


-a
-- 
suffering increases your inner strength.  also, the wishing for suffering
makes the suffering disappear.
- h.h. the 14th dali lama