From: MikkelFJ <mikkelj-anti-spam@...1.dknet.dk>
Date: 2001-08-24T07:50:07+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:20217] Re: ++ Operator


"Paul Brannan" <pbrannan@atdesk.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.33.0108231544160.9005-100000@zaphod.atdesk.com...
> > The only moment where I miss the "++" is actually when I need to
increment
> > a Number... Writing "a += 1" is just.. depressing.. ;p.
>
> Not to mention that a += 1 is less efficient (in terms of speed) than a =
> a.succ(), and the latter really doesn't imply that we are incrementing a
> (not to mention that it's more ugly).

Speed is a bad argument for language design. Any decent Ruby compiler /
interpreter would optimize += 1 if possible. If it doesn't, it should be
fixed there, and not in the language itself.

That said, I would also like a ++ operator, but I agree with Matz argument
about inconsistency with non-numeric types, given the += 1 definition.

An object should either have a "one" element as understood from algebra
which is the generalized += 1 approach, or a succ method. The latter is more
intuitive and practical, although it generally also requires a pred method
for symmetri with --.

But I see no problem in having ++ being an alias for a succ. method.
All objects are not required to support pred/succ., but obviously
1.succ() -> 2 by default and "a".succ() -> "b".

Mikkel