From: Hal Fulton <hal9000@...>
Date: 2004-02-01T07:01:28+09:00
Subject: Re: No difference between .. and ... flip/flop operators?

Dan Doel wrote:

> I, for one, don't have a strong opinion about whether flip flops
> should be in the language. From the perl code posted, it looks like
> that's where it's taken from. Matz is also considering taking out
> some other perlisms, I believe (like certain $ variables), so
> maybe this is something else he took from perl that he wishes he
> didn't. 

I can't speak for Matz, but my impression is that the perlisms
belonged in there, but are now wearing thin. Ruby is approxmiately
ten years old, and there are many things that are acceptable for
five-year-olds but not ten-year-olds. :)

As for the swearing variables, I have never liked the idea of
changing the behavior of a piece of code or a library function by
altering the value of a global. After all, why are global variables
usually considered bad?

As for the flipflop issue, I favor a solution that makes sense in
terms of normal Ruby syntax and semantics.

Given that only false and nil are false, and a range is never nil,
why should

     if x..y
        puts "yes"
     else
        puts "no"
     end

ever print "no"?


Just my opinion.

Hal