dblack@wobblini.evault.com
> Richard Kilmer [mailto:rich@infoether.com] :
> > Oops...sorry...you are right...it would have to be:
> >
> > f.{Array}['rich']
> >
> > to make it explicit that you are grouping the {} with the
> > method name. This is only an issue for the operator'ish methods
> > because methods require the dot in them already.
>
> Maybe:
>
> f<Array>['rich']
> f.<Person>[firstname]
>
> It's ugly enough to discourage its use, but it also calls
to mind the
> syntax for C++ templates (for good or ill) while not being
> currently-legal Ruby.I think it has to be assumed that if Matz adds any type-related stuff,
it will get very heavy use, ugly or not. Luckily there's little or no
precedent for Matz adding ugly stuffbut I think this is a case
where people who want to use it are not going to be deterred by how it
looks, so I wouldn't want to rely on that effect.
Well, I still think that this is probably a good compromise, as (1) it
isn't legal Ruby in 1.8, and (2) it will definitely raise warning
hackles to the people who *don't* use it. I seem to recall reading
something in the last year or so that suggests that Matz did add
something to the language that was either *hard* or *ugly* because he
wanted it to be used rarely, but available. I don't remember what it
was.
-austin
···
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Austin Ziegler wrote:
--
austin ziegler * austin.ziegler@evault.com