----- Original Message -----
From: Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz / zetabits.com>
To: ruby-talk ML <ruby-talk / ruby-lang.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 6:13 PM
Subject: [ruby-talk:15226] Re: Discussion on new Ruby features


> When someone meets with Ruby for the first time, because it's very
> close to his unseen ideal language, but lacks something, he can't
> resist asking for adding that "lacked features" to make Ruby perfect
> (from his point of view, of course).  I call this "Ruby Change Request
> Syndrome".

Ha... funny and true. Most of us have had RCRS from time to time,
haven't we?  :)

I still feel the need for an "in" operator. (Not a big deal, of course! And
common sense urges no major syntax changes, not in a hurry anyway.)
Haven't got around to making an RCR since that process was put in
place.

To summarize, instead of saying (for instance)
        if [3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29].include? x then ...

I'd like to say:
        if x in [3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29] then ...

Of course, "in" would result in a call to "include?" just as "for" calls
"each."

I wonder if there's an English-vs-Japanese word-order effect here? Or
maybe it's just me.

I copy from-to, not to-from -- making some assembly languages harder
than others, and making me waste a microsecond of thought every time
I use strcpy() in C.

In the same way, I ask "is this in that?" rather than "does that contain
this?"

If I talk to my friend on his cellphone, I ask him "Are you in your car?" I
don't
ask "Does your car contain you?" I ask "Are you in Texas?" not "Does Texas
surround you?"

Just my 1 cent's worth.

Hal