[#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:5161] Re: Types and ===

From: schneik@...
Date: 2000-09-27 21:25:35 UTC
List: ruby-talk #5161


Hi,

# > Hal writes:
# >
# > # Well, Aleksi,
# > #
# > # You and Conrad are certainly following the
# > # Principle of Greatest Surprise.
# >
# > I'm have no idea how you drew that connection in my case, especially
# since
# > both of you omitted to quote, mention, or summarize most everything of
# > relevance in my original note, and both of you seemed to miss its main
# > point.
# >
#
# Sorry, Conrad, I probably did miss its main point. Your list of
# relations was so unusual and exhaustive that I assumed it was some
# kind of joke.

# OK, let me ask this: Are you giving examples of possible uses for
# === that are not commutative?

Yes; to quote myself

| Because many of the world's common prepositional and similarity
| relations (if you are going to include them in the "===" realm) just
| don't work that way in general (special cases notwithstanding); hence
| my original question
...
| But here is a still more general question: why would you want to
| preclude "===" from potentially being *any* suitable 2-place predicate
| method whatsoever?

In other words....

AFAIK, the principal use/purpose of "===" is "case equality" for case
statements. (IMHO this is an unfortunately somewhat over-specialized name
for a more general concept--I would have preferred something more generic
or more generalized such as "case matching".) Since there are so many
sorts of relations that are not symmetric with respect to swapping their
arguments that people might quite reasonably want to use in case
statements, then unless I am missing something else here, I don't see how
precluding the usage of such methods wouldn't eventually become a very
onerous restriction.

Conrad Schneiker
(This note is unofficial and subject to improvement without notice.)



In This Thread

Prev Next