From: "Hal E. Fulton" <hal9000@...>
Date: 2000-09-25T18:07:38+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:5098] Re: Crazy idea? infix method calls

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