From: "Sean O'Dell" <sean@...[REMOVE_THE_SPAM]>
Date: 2003-09-12T08:35:06+09:00
Subject: Re: ANN: MetaTags 1.0

Ryan Pavlik wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 06:34:07 +0900
> why the lucky stiff <ruby-talk@whytheluckystiff.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>  %_{ ... }
>>  %YAML{ ... }
>>  YAML { ... }
>>  YAML " ... "
>>  " ... " & Caml
>>  " ... " >> Caml
>>  Caml << " ... "
>>
>>I still really like %y{ ... } and Nobu introduced a clean patch to do so.
>>(offroaders only.)
> 
> 
> I've been watching this discussion... the problem is, %x{...} are
> ugly.  As in:
> 
>     foo(*%w{a b c})
> 
> I mean, really, "(*%w{" looks like I'm cursing at ruby.  There are a
> number of times I've contemplated using %-literals and just decided
> against it because it looked like this.
> 
> The latter two are really cool, though... a very good use for >> IMO,
> since (afaict) it's generally unused in ruby, and seems very
> intuitive at-a-glance.

I'm really partial to the last one:

     Caml << " ... "

.... the others are glyphy, and one thing I love about Ruby is its 
minimal glyphiness.  Or, I should say, it has "glyphy features which 
usually have far less glyphy alternatives so you can skip the glyphy 
crap if you want to."

I see glyphy as the past.  I don't see glyphy as the future.  I hope I 
don't, anyway.  =)

	Sean O'Dell