From: Chris Pine <nemo@...>
Date: 2003-01-11T08:09:52+09:00
Subject: Re: dot-equals method?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Carrera" <dcarrera@math.umd.edu>

> The . has a somewhat different status than + or *, though.
>
>     x += 1       ==     x = x.+ 1
>     x *= 1       ==     x = x.* 1
>
>     x .= split   ?=     x = x.. split

Why can't we say:

x += 2     ==     x = x + 2
x *= 2     ==     x = x + 2
x .= foo   ==     x = x . foo
----------------------------

Well, I think the point that he was making was that:

  x += 2  means  "call x's `+' method, passing in 2"

which, if used in the same way, gives:

  x .= foo means "call x's `.' method, passing in foo"

which, of course, makes no sense.

That fact that it *looks* like the expansion is so similiar (as you showed
in your email) is, I think, why it just *feels* right at first.  I think I
have started thinking of `.' almost like it's a method, too, but it isn't.
Perhaps this comes from thinking of methods and their parameters as simply
messages passed.  Maybe this all started because I've been playing with
`method_missing' too much!  After a while, even `def' started to feel like
fluff.

Time to do something else,

:)

Chris