[#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:5100] Re: Crazy idea? infix method calls

From: matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
Date: 2000-09-25 09:20:44 UTC
List: ruby-talk #5100
Hi,

In message "[ruby-talk:5098] Re: Crazy idea? infix method calls"
    on 00/09/25, "Hal E. Fulton" <hal9000@hypermetrics.com> writes:

|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...

It's possible, because 'in' is the reserved word, so that `x in y' is
not valid now.  Let us discuss about name, behavior, and
least-surprise-ness. ;-)


							matz.

In This Thread