On Mar 22, 2006, at 10:06 PM, Hal Fulton wrote:
>> Hm, at least that makes sense.  However, it's hard for me to think  
>> of  === as having direction (it doesn't look like it has  
>> direction, and  therefore it can be difficult to remember which  
>> direction it's  supposed to go sometimes).
>
> I drew some (a little) criticism for spending four pages
> in _The Ruby Way_ covering the case statement.
>
> I think it's powerful, and I think it's done the Right Way,
> and shouldn't be changed.
>
> But I also think there are some non-obvious quirks (such as
> you describe).
>

If four pages is what it takes....  I haven't read the Ruby Way yet  
(maybe if I had I wouldn't have been confused), but at the moment I  
wish that either Why's PG or the Pickaxe covered === a bit better.  I  
also wish that it looked asymmetrical (maybe ==~ instead of ==,  
though that would invite people to think of it in relation to =~,  
which probably wouldn't be good either).  Anyway, I think I'll be  
able to keep its role straight in my head.

Thanks for the help, guys.

Tim