[ruby-talk:5164] Re: Crazy idea? infix method calls

Thanks, Matju...

See below.

----- Original Message -----
From: Mathieu Bouchard <[e-mail]>
To: ruby-talk ML <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 3:12 PM
Subject: [ruby-talk:5162] Re: Crazy idea? infix method calls


> > |Does anyone but me like this proposal at all?
> > I don't know.  I personally don't feel it's required.  But I can find
> > the room for the syntax (maybe; I should try first).  If *many*
> > requested this enhancement, we can add it to the language after
> > deciding 1) operator priority 2) the name of the internal method.
> > In [ruby-talk:5125], matju proposed candidate for both.

> In 5125, I did propose a precedence, but did not explicitly proposed a
> name for the internal method. However, I feel "a in b" should mean
> "b.include? a", just like the original poster had said.

I was not sure what Matz meant... I thought maybe he was referring to
the internals of Ruby, which many on this list know about, but I do not.

> maybe contains? would be a better name (?), but if it were, "contains?"
> would have to become the official name for "include?".

I think include? is just fine. I don't think contains is any better (with or
without
the question mark).

> Disclaimer: I've never used the "for..in" statement in ruby. :-)
>

Heh heh... I do use it, though. Probably goes back to my past: C, ksh,
discrete math algorithmic notation, and even (shhh!) old-fashioned BASIC.

> matju
>

Thanks,
Hal