Hi --

On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Logan Capaldo wrote:

>
> On Mar 8, 2006, at 2:09 PM, Dominik Bathon wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 15:56:53 +0100, <dblack / wobblini.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi --
>>> 
>>> On Wed, 8 Mar 2006, itsme213 wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I wouldn't hold my breath for := or equivalent :-)
>>> 
>>> I have to say, I've been wondering for many years... is self.x = 1
>>> really *that* bad?  It just seems like such a  minor thing to me.  I
>>> certainly wouldn't want to see new punctuation introduced just to
>>> avoid it.
>> 
>> How about allowing
>> 
>> .attr = val
>> 
>> as a shortcut for
>> 
>> self.attr = val
>> 
>> It's no "new" punctuation and I can't see any ambiguities with current ruby 
>> syntax (correct me if I'm wrong).
>> 
>> Just an idea.
>> 
>> Dominik
>> 
>
> Hmmmmmm, It's shorter than self.attr, but on the other hand it's  uglier IMO. 
> One question I would have to wonder is:
>
> self.method( ) # definitely not private
> method( ) # definitely private
> self.x = y # could be public or private
> .x # probably(?) not private ???
> .x = y # ???
>
> Oh wait  I take the whole thing back, naked method( ) could be public too. I 
> guess throwing .x  in there doesn't make the visibility any more confusing

I wonder how the parser would handle:

   obj .x

i.e., whether it would be:

   obj.x

or

   obj(.x)


David

-- 
David A. Black (dblack / wobblini.net)
Ruby Power and Light, LLC (http://www.rubypowerandlight.com)

"Ruby for Rails" chapters now available
from Manning Early Access Program! http://www.manning.com/books/black