From: Jean-Hugues ROBERT <jean_hugues_robert@...>
Date: 2004-04-24T05:28:15+09:00
Subject: Re: Creating bang methods

About ++ ...
At 03:48 24/04/2004 +0900, you wrote:
>Just like +=, ++ can not be defined as a method on an object.

but + can be redefined and ++ could as well. As a matter of fact
one may argue that even ++pre and ++post could be redefined (but
I am certainly not going to advocate for that).

>But you are correct that there is no /technical/ reason preventing ++a
>from being treated an abbreviation for a=a+1.

I suspect that there *are* technical reasons. I would have to dig in
the lexer/parser code to figure out what they are I suppose.

>However, one must balance the advantages against the disadvantages.  Does
>the convenience make up for the complexity of yet more special syntax.
>Does it fit well with the rest of the language? (for example: += works
>well with strings, what should ++ do with strings?  What should ++ do with
>time values: increment by an hour, a minute, a second, a day?).

++ is a nice idiom. I remember how happy I was when I eventually figured
it out while learning C. Remember:
   strcpy( char* dest, char *src ) { while *dest++ = *src++ }
Much the same nostalgia with a->b shorthand for (*a).b !
That one will be in ruby 2 somehow: key: value for :key => value
L'histoire est un �ternel recommencement.
history is an eternal rebeggining (sorry for that)

>In this matter of balance, everyone will weigh the sides differently.  So
>far, Matz has decided that the convenience of saving one character doesn't
>balance the extra complexity involved.  So be it.  Many people agree, some
>people dont'.   I can live with that (and I'm glad it is Matz deciding and
>not me!).

So do I :-)

Jean-Hugues