[ruby-talk:5215] Re: Crazy idea? infix method calls

I see your point, Dave...

Actually, I gave up quickly on the idea of infix method 
calls, though I still favor the addition of the "in" 
pseudo-operator... I think its existence in Python, which
I didn't know of till someone else mentioned it,  is 
almost reason enough to implement it. (I don't know
Python at all.) 

Anyhow, I will try to keep track of the pros and cons
of this issue.

There are, of course, more important and more pressing
matters...

Hal


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Dave Thomas <[e-mail]>
To: ruby-talk ML <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 8:47 PM
Subject: [ruby-talk:5205] Re: Crazy idea? infix method calls


> [e-mail] (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
> 
> 
>