[#4766] Wiki — "Glen Stampoultzis" <trinexus@...>

21 messages 2000/09/04
[#4768] RE: Wiki — "NAKAMURA, Hiroshi" <nahi@...> 2000/09/04

Hi, Glen,

[#4783] Re: Wiki — Masatoshi SEKI <m_seki@...> 2000/09/04

[#4785] Re: Wiki — "NAKAMURA, Hiroshi" <nakahiro@...> 2000/09/05

Howdy,

[#4883] Re-binding a block — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>

16 messages 2000/09/12

[#4930] Perl 6 rumblings -- RFC 225 (v1) Data: Superpositions — Conrad Schneiker <schneik@...>

Hi,

11 messages 2000/09/15

[#4936] Ruby Book Eng. translation editor's questions — Jon Babcock <jon@...>

20 messages 2000/09/16

[#5045] Proposal: Add constants to Math — Robert Feldt <feldt@...>

15 messages 2000/09/21

[#5077] Crazy idea? infix method calls — hal9000@...

This is a generalization of the "in" operator idea which I

17 messages 2000/09/22

[#5157] Compile Problem with 1.6.1 — Scott Billings <aerogems@...>

When I try to compile Ruby 1.6.1, I get the following error:

15 messages 2000/09/27

[ruby-talk:5079] RE: Crazy idea? infix method calls

From: Aleksi Niemel<aleksi.niemela@...>
Date: 2000-09-22 23:18:33 UTC
List: ruby-talk #5079
> What if Ruby could have user-definable methods that could be
> called as infix operators?
..
> dot in a method call, e.g.   X opr Y  is the same as X.opr Y

I'm not sure how

  p foo op bar op2 zak 

should be parsed. Is it

  p.foo(op).bar(op2).zak()

or

  p(foo.op(bar).op2(zak))

or something else.

Yup. It's a nice idea. I don't know anything about parsers to say whether
this is really doable. OTOH, Ruby is already stretching my world of what
could be parsed nicely...  

In any event, I'm pretty sure this wouldn't work unambiguously for the coder
in more complex cases.

	- Aleksi

In This Thread

Prev Next