From: Aldric Giacomoni <aldric@...>
Date: 2009-11-21T22:35:17+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby doesn't implement x++ for Fixnum's because ???

Sebastian Hungerecker wrote:
> Am Donnerstag 19 November 2009 16:48:52 schrieb Aldric Giacomoni:
>> http://jicksta.com/posts/superators-add-new-operators-to-ruby
>> Well, with -that-, we definitely can add '++' as syntactic sugar for 
>> succ.
> 
> But what good would that do except confuse people?
> 
> If x++ were equivalent to x.succ neither  x++; p x  nor  p(x++)  would 
> behave
> as expected (were "as expected" means "like they do in other 
> languages").
> 
> For x++ to behave as expected, it would have to be sugar for x.succ! 
> (and
> x.succ! would have to return x's previous value), which, as has been 
> pointed
> out, doesn't and can't exist.

Hey. You see that horse on the ground? It's dead. Dead dead dead. D-E-D, 
dead. I was just making a joke :)
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.