From: Kalman Noel <invalid@...>
Date: 2006-10-31T23:15:13+09:00
Subject: Re: can there be a "with" construction?

>> It seems that this pattern has been quite popular for some time already.
>> It may be desirable for the list to try and agree on a great name for the
>> method. Anyone who implements it calls it differently: Object#then,
>> Object#with, Object#tap, Kernel#returning, Kernel#with, ...  Anyone with
>> arguments for or against certain names, or with a better name for the
>> method?
> 
> I suppose I'll cast my vote for either "with" or "suchthat" or even ":"
> (though IIRC, ":" can't be a method name).  They are all idiomatic in
> mathematical circles when introducing a new mathematical object in an
> argument.  

Yes, that's too why I like 損with束.

>> It seems to me that it's impossible to invent a useful name for this
>> method with the term 損eigen束 in it, so a discussion should be possible
>> without too much battle.
> Interesting.  Why "eigen"?  

(NB: I wrote 損impossible束, not 損possible束.)  I intended to hint at the term
損eigenclass束, which is an example of a Ruby concept with more than one name. 
It naming sometimes enjoys heavy discussions.

> I don't know much German, but as far as I know, "eigen" means something along
> the lines of "characteristic of" or "particular to". 

It does. The inventors of the term 損eigenclass束 have supposingly thought of the
mathematical words 損eigenvector束 and 損eigenvalue束. (You get them when solving
the characteristic equation of a matrix, assuming I got the English terms
right.) 損Characteristic束 and 損eigen束 mean the same here.

Kalman