From: dblack@...
Date: 2007-01-13T07:58:23+09:00
Subject: Re: RCR again (Integer#succ!, Integer#pred!)

Hi --

On Sat, 13 Jan 2007, Phrogz wrote:

> dbl...@wobblini.net wrote:
>> Even when it's 2007++ integers will still be immutable, immediate
>> values :-)  I much prefer having people have to learn that that's how
>> Ruby integers are.
>
> To be fair, that's a perfectly reasonable argument if ++ were to be a
> method call. If it's to be programmer convenience for x += 1 (syntax
> sugar for x=x+1) however, it could also be implemented as syntax sugar.
>
> I'm personally perfectly happy without ++, but there are certainly ways
> that it *could* be added to Ruby without violating the immutable
> objects.

I don't think that's ever been in doubt (that the parser could be
trained to turn x++ into x += 1).  But the reason Matz has always
given for not considering it appropriate is that in languages where
it's used it customarily indicates incrementation, rather than
reassignment to a variable.  So using it for assignment would
potentially be misleading.


David

-- 
Q. What is THE Ruby book for Rails developers?
A. RUBY FOR RAILS by David A. Black (http://www.manning.com/black)
    (See what readers are saying!  http://www.rubypal.com/r4rrevs.pdf)
Q. Where can I get Ruby/Rails on-site training, consulting, coaching?
A. Ruby Power and Light, LLC (http://www.rubypal.com)