From: Robert Dober <robert.dober@...>
Date: 2006-09-28T23:04:23+09:00
Subject: Re: New magical version of Symbol.to_proc

------=_Part_52419_19245238.1159452260383
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

<snip>
>
>
> >>> (1..10).to_a.to_ss
> > =3D> ["1", "2", "3", "4", "5", "6", "7", "8", "9", "10"]
> >>> (1..10).to_a.days
> > =3D> [86400, 172800, 259200, 345600, 432000, 518400, 604800, 691200,
> > 777600, 864000]
> >>> [2,'two', :two].classes
> > =3D> [Fixnum, String, Symbol]
> >>> [2,'two', :two].classes.names
> > =3D> ["Fixnum", "String", "Symbol"]
> >>> [2,'two', :two].classes.names.lengths
> > =3D> [6, 6, 6]
> >
> > So much happy syntax in one place!
>
> Actually the reason this is kind of cool is not the syntax but the
> semantics.  It's much more expressive than any number of &:->()...
> things that have been proposed -- and looks better.  (There may be
> some connection there too.)
>
> I wonder, though, whether it would be too easy for it to trample on
> other method names.  I guess that's true of anything -- you'd just
> have to make sure you didn't have two conceptions of some plural
> thing.


I agree, *cool* and *somehow dangerous*, I would very conservatively propos=
e
a proxy method, similiar in spirit to BDD's rspec#is

%w{the meaning of 42}.map.length =3D> [3, too_long_to_count, 2, 2]

or maybe not overload #map without params for that purpose?

Just an idea of course ;)

BTW Using English semantics for Ruby semantics does seem
+ interesting
+ avantguarde
- intolerant
- too dangerous
- too early

it is great people doing this, I would hate having it in the core though.
Robert
--=20
Deux choses sont infinies : l'univers et la b=EAtise humaine ; en ce qui
concerne l'univers, je n'en ai pas acquis la certitude absolue.

- Albert Einstein

------=_Part_52419_19245238.1159452260383--