[ruby-talk:00439] Re: New feature for Ruby?

On Fri, 09 Jul 1999, you wrote:
>Hi
>
>In message "[ruby-talk:00431] Re: New feature for Ruby?"
>    on 99/07/07, Clemens Hintze <[e-mail]> writes:

[...]

>
>Oh! Why do you know that Ich war fleissig Schuler nicht???  As you
>guess, I can't understand German.  But please let me know when you
>write. I'll try to read that. 

Wow, how many Japanese have learned German once? ;-) Now I know more
Japanese be able to speak German (perhaps only a little bit) than I
know Germans being able to speak Japanese. :-)

But on every case I will send you such an article, if I ever have the
opportunity to write one! :-)

[...]

>>It seems only mine :-) I think, that Sequence would also be okay,
>>perhaps. As I have told you, the name is coming from the Smalltalk
>>world not from any logical or even mathematical insight!

I have thought again, now I think, you was right to insist. The best
would be, that we would change Range to fulfill all these
requirements. But if I cannot convince matz, I would now take
`Sequence' as name.

Not only reminds `Sequence' me as "... descrete series, i.e.,
enumerable and one dimensional.", but also it seems to imply a
direction (up or down).

>
>My apologies if you feel that I say same things again and again <bow>. 

Oops! I was not feeling, that you say the same again and again. I was
feeling, that `I' saying the same again and again! :-)

But that was not as I think you are not able to understand english,
only I fear, that my Pidgin english was not clear enough to transfer
my opinion very clear. :-(

You know, one time I let pass a good opportunity, as I could not make
clear my desires. After some time, it was resolved by another guy.
Than I have thanked them, and asked why it was now implemented and not
six month before? The answer was something like: "Oh! That was what
you have meant! Sorry we totally have misunderstood you." and I have
even not recognized, that I was misunderstood :-}

To not repeat that sat feeling, I tend to repeat my opinion over and
over again, until a decision is made AND reasons are clear and logical
for me (if the decision was `no', where I hope it was `yes', of
course) ;-)

>I remember your naming is from Smalltalk.  Though it is not bad, I'd
>like to name to be more plausible or more intelligible.  I believe the
>name is very important; The most part of design, I believe, is
>choosing the name.  A suitable name leads us what feature should be

I agree with you!

>supported.  I use mathematics to name in many case because just I do
>not have the sense of word in English. I'm not intending ``the world,
>be logical'' :-)

Whereas I feel that you're right, but it seems most in the computing
world is not mathematic, for good or for bad. :-)

But in our case here, I second you now!

[...]

>Me too. Your opinion is very persuasive. However, 
>Regarding Integer only, int.step(to, step) can make it:

I already have recognized that. But I want that feature for Floats and
others too. I dont like, that I have to choose Integer#step,
String#upto and <class>#<whatever> to perfrom nearly the same task. So
I would insist of adapting class Range or write a new class Sequence.

[...]

>Is it esoteric? 

Saying esoteric, I mean that I have to use different ways to archieve
the same goal with different kind of classes :-)

[...]

>>It really hurts me, that the mighty Ruby have use some esoteric
>>methods to archive the same goal :-(
>
>Perhaps, I don't understand the above sentence, maybe. 

I meant, such crab like BASIC can use _one_ construct `FOR A=1 TO 9
STEP 2' to do all what I desire here. But Ruby has to use
Integer#step, String#upto (as step doesn't exist now) and for Float
there exist nothing of these methods.

>
>
>By the way, I introduce tips to redefine `new' here.  You can use it
>in order to modify the Range to have some properties (e.g., stepsize)
>by specifying them as options.

Sorry! I don't very like it (the solution, not your trick ;-). It
would also modify Range, but would not introduce all of the features
I want. If we decide to touch class Range, I would like to let Range
behave like current class Interval.

I would code it in C. That would make it a cleaner solution. What
do you think?

But nevertheless thanks for your lessons :-))))

\cle