From: Joel VanderWerf <vjoel@...>
Date: 2009-05-15T01:42:13+09:00
Subject: Re: Syntactic sugar idea

Mark Thomas wrote:
> This is a neat idea, but wouldn't it conflict with the "fluent
> interface" construct? Using Joel's DSL example:
> 
> config "my window" do
>    .width @x
>    .height @y
> end
> 
> if we changed it to
> 
> config "my window" do
>    .width calculate_width
>    .height @y
> end
> 
> Now how does the parser know what .height refers to: calculate_width,
> or the implicit block variable?

Yeah, seems impossible. Maybe if there were some other character instead 
of "." to signify sending a message to the block's "default object".

-- 
       vjoel : Joel VanderWerf : path berkeley edu : 510 665 3407