Lothar Scholz wrote:

> Hello Nikolai,

> When writing a manuscript do you really think it is more readable if
> you use your own syntax workaround.

Well, if it°«s shown how it works and how it°«s used, then yes.  How else
would books on Lisp ever get written?

> I didn't follow the RCR (i think it was rejected due to implementation
> complexity) that suggested that 'def' returns the defined symbol so
> that we could write:

> public def foo
> end

> At this time my argument against this was also that public (and
> everything else) should have just one clear and precise meaning and
> usage. With this it would increase 'public' to three different use
> cases which is IMHO bad for readability.

And now it has only has two meanings and uses, neither of which is that
great.  I guess I°«ll just have to wait for decorators°ń

By the way, I wasn°«t suggesting that something like this be included in
Ruby°«s standard library.  It was more of an exercise in Ruby than
anything else.  It also happened to allow me to write the visibility and
the method name on the same line, which is what I wanted.  It°«s not a
good solution, but it at least seems to work,
        nikolai

-- 
Nikolai Weibull: now available free of charge at http://bitwi.se/!
Born in Chicago, IL USA; currently residing in Gothenburg, Sweden.
main(){printf(&linux["\021%six\012\0"],(linux)["have"]+"fun"-97);}