On Jan 6, 2007, at 4:12 PM, Trans wrote:
> Put together a proof of concept of Gary Wright's idea of using an
> operator for send instead of a method. This also incorporates an
> implementation of Ara's Pervasives. There are a couple caveats to this
> implementation however that would have to be handled in any production
> version.

Interesting. Just to clarify: If my idea is worth anything it can't
really be implemented via a redefine-able operator.  That would just  
change
the area of concern from #send being redefined to #operator being  
redefined.
I realize that Trans is basically just experimenting with syntax at this
point.

> 1) It uses >> rather then ->, for obvious reasons. So as it is, it  
> will
> not work with a few classes that already use >> (unless they are
> redefined).

Well, I would still argue that << would be better than >> for mnemonic
reasons but I understand that a lot more classes have << already  
defined.

> 3) It doesn't provide a "pervasive send" operator.

Well, as long as folks aren't redefining methods in BasicObject you  
*almost*
have a "pervasive send" operator:

   obj >> [BasicObject, :object_id]

I think there is a strong argument to be made that BasicObject should be
frozen.  You can override methods there via inheritance but I don't  
think
BasicObject itself should be modified.

Gary Wright