From: Robert Dober <robert.dober@...>
Date: 2007-01-22T03:36:22+09:00
Subject: Re: Hash pairs at?

------=_Part_180637_33354756.1169404579942
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

On 1/21/07, Trans <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Robert Dober wrote:
>
> <snip>
> Think I still prefer the readability of #pairs_at however. But the
> above is good to have too.
>
> T.
>
>
> The more I think about it the more I like the Smalltalk approach, the
syntactic sugar kind of spoils us, ( I remember how happy I was about C++ in
the first please because I could write
whatever_object + another_object  well I was young and stupid than, now of
course I am older ;).

It is really your posts who brought it up, it is so natural to want to have
consistent notation.
But sometimes I really think Ruby would be better a language without
Array#<< Proc#[] etc. etc
Why is there not a Array#>> for #pop, these are very reasonable questions a
new Ruby user will ask!.

If we would have one way to call a proc, one way to push to an array, things
would be simpler.
I *still* agree that now, gotten used to it, << is very, very readable (I
*never* use #push), but I am starting to wonder if I am not mistaken?

In that spirit I guess #pairs_at is really much more readable, we should use
Programming Jargon, not Ruby Jargon (although it gives this warm fuzzy
feeling, I agree!!!!).

Cheers
Robert


-- 
"The best way to predict the future is to invent it."
- Alan Kay

------=_Part_180637_33354756.1169404579942--