[#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:5098] Re: Crazy idea? infix method calls

From: "Hal E. Fulton" <hal9000@...>
Date: 2000-09-25 09:07:38 UTC
List: ruby-talk #5098
Thank you Matz...
Comments below.

Hal

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@zetabits.com>
To: ruby-talk ML <ruby-talk@netlab.co.jp>
Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2000 1:36 AM
Subject: [ruby-talk:5081] Re: Crazy idea? infix method calls


> Second of all, Ruby 1.6 consider
> 
> >  x mymethod 5       # the same thing...
> 
> as x(mymethod(5)).  So I'm afraid infix method invocation raises
> ambiguity. 

OK, I see that. 

But I still think, as a special case, it woudl be a good idea if
    x in y
meant the same as
   y.include? x

It is "pretty" (IMO) in the same way that the for loop is pretty...

> 
> Speaking of syntax enhancement, method as left hand side of
> assignment, e.g.
> 
>   str.substr(2,5) = "abc"
> 
> might be interesting.
> 

Hmm, I did not realize this was not already possible...

HF





In This Thread