------art_41380_25438860.1184855436353
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

On 7/19/07, Trans <transfire / gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Jul 19, 2:45 am, dbl... / wobblini.net wrote:
> > Hi --
> >
> > On Thu, 19 Jul 2007, Trans wrote:
> > > I think I've come up with a good alternative that is safer, but still
> > > reads well (as of 1.9):
> >
> > >  arr.map.x + 3
> >
> > > What do you think?
> >
> > I'm afraid there's too much "invisible ink" there for me.
>
> Well, what does that mean? Clearly you find it uncomfortable in some
> manner. Is it just the magic-dot again? Or something else? Is the
> original
>
>   arr.map + 3
>
> okay? Or are both too much "invisible ink". What is wrong with it/them
> more concretely?


At a glance, I can't tell if arr is a object with an attribute named map
that you're adding 3 to (and never storing).  Does this return a value, or
does it modify in place? If it returns a value, then you'd end up with a
statement like

new_arr  rr.map + 3

without knowing a lot of specifics about arr, map, and this magic, I would
totally assume that map is an attribute of arr, and you're adding 3 to it.

This sort of shortcut is the kind of thing I would use in a DSL where
certain context is assumed, but wouldn't use in day to day programming, it's
just too ambiguous.

Thanks,
> T.
>
>
>


-- 
Tanner Burson
tanner.burson / gmail.com
http://www.tannerburson.com

------art_41380_25438860.1184855436353--