From: "Mauricio Fernández" Date: 2002-12-02T19:32:08+09:00 Subject: Re: Ruby ++, the one element and generators On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 11:13:22AM +0900, Hal E. Fulton wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Austin Ziegler" > To: "ruby-talk ML" > Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2002 5:52 PM > Subject: Re: Ruby ++, the one element and generators > > [snip] > > > It would be nicer to be able to do Inc(a) or a++, but the cost -- to > > the Ruby language, IMO -- of doing such a thing isn't worth the > > minor savings of keyboarding. > > > > To me, ++ has a HUGE downside: it's an assignment masquerading as an > > increment. There is nothing for the novice which suggests that a++ > > is actually assigning as well as incrementing, unlike a += 1. > > [snip again] > > Austin -- > > This echoes my thoughts on the matter. Well said. > > At any rate, it's all rather a theoretical discussion -- > i.e., it is moot, since I don't expect Matz *ever* to add > ++ to Ruby. > > It's fine to discuss matters of "why" and "what if" -- but > IMO, he made right decision nine years ago, I'd be amazed > if he ever reversed it, and that is that. Agree. That's why I labelled my previous post as a Gedankenexperiment. The point is showing that any attempt to introduce '++' in Ruby in a somewhat consistent way complicates it far more than some would think at first. And that the returns are very small. I hoped the reader would (in case (s)he read it all) realize by the end of that post that '++' is just not worth that much effort. Just for the record, I do not want to have '++' in Ruby, period. But it's always interesting to wonder 'what if?' cause this makes the reasons behind matz's decisions explicit. And proves that he was right :-) -- _ _ | |__ __ _| |_ ___ _ __ ___ __ _ _ __ | '_ \ / _` | __/ __| '_ ` _ \ / _` | '_ \ | |_) | (_| | |_\__ \ | | | | | (_| | | | | |_.__/ \__,_|\__|___/_| |_| |_|\__,_|_| |_| Running Debian GNU/Linux Sid (unstable) batsman dot geo at yahoo dot com > Linux is not user-friendly. It _is_ user-friendly. It is not ignorant-friendly and idiot-friendly. -- Seen somewhere on the net