From: Austin Ziegler <austin@...>
Date: 2002-11-04T05:00:22+09:00
Subject: Re: Thoughts on Ruby

On Mon, 4 Nov 2002 04:39:35 +0900, Albert Wagner wrote:
> On Saturday 02 November 2002 11:56 pm, Austin Ziegler wrote:
>> On Sun, 3 Nov 2002 10:57:29 +0900, Enric Lafont wrote:
>>> Why does common operators like "=" , "and", " .." , "or" etc ...
>>> can not be overloaded or redefined ?, maybe the complexity of
>>> the Ruby parser comes from the fact that everything is ALMOST an
>>> object or a method.
>> I don't actually see this (that everything is "almost" an
>> object).
> I read this differently. Certain peculiarities in the english
> syntax led me to suspect english-as-second language. I assumed,
> rightly or wrongly, that Enric meant that: ALMOST everything is an
> object or a method.

I tried to read beyond the ESL. I still don't see that "almost
everything is an object or method". To me, everything in Ruby *is*
an object, and with the exception of boolean combinations and
keywords (and, or, etc.), everything else is a method -- even if it
doesn't have to be written that way. (I agree that from a SmallTalk
perspective that the fact that loops & such aren't messages does
appear weird.)

>>> Why is not "=" a method?
> Again, I think a misunderstanding.
> 
>             assignment    comparator
> Smalltalk   :=            =
> Ruby        =             ==

I'm not sure. '=' isn't a method, and it doesn't make sense to be a
method. '==' *is* a method and it's redefinable.

-austin
-- Austin Ziegler, austin@halostatue.ca on 2002.11.03 at 14.45.48