On Jan 21, 2005, at 9:23 AM, Richard Turner wrote:

> On Sat, 2005-01-22 at 00:12 +0900, James Edward Gray II wrote:
>> Yes, but less Javaish and more Rubyish.  ;)  We're not a wordy bunch
>> and [] is our standard accessor, say you convey the same information,
>> but type less.
>>
> Fair enough :)  I'd shy away from it because to me (at least, at the
> moment), it seems to imply enumeration.  I'd be tempted to assume that
> Section[] would 'fill' from index 0 so that, if there are any Sections,
> there will certainly be Section[0].  Since the parameter is an ID, not
> an index, it doesn't seem right.
>
> On the other hand, Section{} sits fine in my head, since there's no
> implied order there :)

We use [] for Arrays and Hashes:

names = { :james => "Gray" }  # define a Hash
names[:james]                 # access a Hash entry

Hope that clears up the choice.

James Edward Gray II