[#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:5205] Re: Crazy idea? infix method calls

From: Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
Date: 2000-09-30 03:47:19 UTC
List: ruby-talk #5205
matz@zetabits.com (Yukihiro Matsumoto) writes:

> |Does anyone but me like this proposal at all?
> 
> I don't know.  I personally don't feel it's required.

Just to add a belated two cents, I'm personally against adding syntax
to Ruby for things that can be done using conventional methods. My
reasoning is simple: let's try things using methods first, preferably
using extension mixins. That way, we guarantee not to break existing
code, and we don't add bloat to the language.

Then, after a reasonable time, we can vote on moving the features from 
the extension to either the standard library or to the language
itself.


Regards



Dave



In This Thread