Is [ ] really a method?

ruby-talk
1

Hi all,

Well while running down the text I read that [] (used in case Arrays and
Hashes) is actually a method called on that Array/hash object and also
that it can be overridden.

well point taken.

BUT if this is just another case of operator overloading then how come
we can call

a[1]='item'

rather than calling

a[]1 ='item'

(Anyways this gave me a syntax error)
Or perhaps it is just another case of Syntactic Sugar?
Or perhaps not, because if that has to be true than the second statement
should also have been true.

So Is [] really a method or is a simple grammar token?

Thanks
Raja

···

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

2

You are really asking about = which is a different method than . And, yes, it really is a method, as is shown by

a = ['a']
a.=(1, 'b')
a # => ["a", "b"]

which is the same as

a = ['a']
a[1] = 'b'
a # => ["a", "b"]

Regards, Morton

···

On Jun 1, 2007, at 11:42 PM, Vin Raja wrote:

Hi all,

Well while running down the text I read that (used in case Arrays and
Hashes) is actually a method called on that Array/hash object and also
that it can be overridden.

well point taken.

BUT if this is just another case of operator overloading then how come
we can call

a[1]='item'

rather than calling

a1 ='item'

(Anyways this gave me a syntax error)
Or perhaps it is just another case of Syntactic Sugar?
Or perhaps not, because if that has to be true than the second statement
should also have been true.

So Is really a method or is a simple grammar token?

3

Well while running down the text I read that (used in case Arrays and
Hashes) is actually a method called on that Array/hash object and also
that it can be overridden.

well point taken.

BUT if this is just another case of operator overloading then how come
we can call

a[1]='item'

rather than calling

a1 ='item'

(Anyways this gave me a syntax error)
Or perhaps it is just another case of Syntactic Sugar?
Or perhaps not, because if that has to be true than the second statement
should also have been true.

So Is really a method or is a simple grammar token?

Everything is a token in the grammar, of course. When the code is being
parsed the is matched as a token, in this case the brackets operator.
The reason your first example works and your second does not is that the
grammar rules for the brackets operator take the arguments to the operator
from between the literal open and close bracket characters. Placing those
arguments outside the brackets, unsurprisingly, does not work.

Since all operators are implemented as method calls in Ruby, the text is
indeed correct in that is called as a method on an Array, Hash, or
whatever the object is.

Note, by the way, that the operator in your examples is actually = rather
than , i.e. it is an element assignment rather than an element retrieval.

Thanks
Raja

--Greg

···

On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 12:42:54PM +0900, Vin Raja wrote:

4

try:

a.(1)

and

a.=(1,'item')

I'd say it is syntactical sugar for those methods....

David Morton
Maia Mailguard http://www.maiamailguard.com
mortonda@dgrmm.net

···

On Jun 1, 2007, at 10:42 PM, Vin Raja wrote:

Hi all,

Well while running down the text I read that (used in case Arrays and
Hashes) is actually a method called on that Array/hash object and also
that it can be overridden.

well point taken.

BUT if this is just another case of operator overloading then how come
we can call

a[1]='item'

rather than calling

a1 ='item'

(Anyways this gave me a syntax error)