From: "Hal E. Fulton" <hal9000@...>
Date: 2002-09-29T15:07:51+09:00
Subject: Re: R (was: adding overload to ruby)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <dblack@candle.superlink.net>
To: "ruby-talk ML" <ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2002 9:29 PM
Subject: Re: R (was: adding overload to ruby)


> I'm actually following up on what Bill points out in the next post.
> I think he's right.  For example:
> 
>     R == 10
>     P ==  2
>     S ==  3
> 
>     R > (P+S)/2    => true
>     P == S         => false
>     (R<P) || (R<S) => false

Yes, you're both right, of course.
I was assuming (R<P) || (R<S) was
true. (Yes, I know assuming is 
dangerous.)

It just seems to me that unless a
fairly complex relationship was
implied, he wouldn't even have
gotten mathematical with it. If it
were as simple as described above,
I would think anyone would express
it by saying something like, "Ruby:
Better Than Perl, Better Than 
Smalltalk!"

I shall now go back to my other
mathematical pursuits. I have 
been experimenting with base 1, 
and I was up all last night trying
to count my nostrils...

Hal