Robert Klemme wrote:
> Brian, you are contradicting yourself: first you deny the presence of
> operators in Ruby and then you talk about them nevertheless. :-)
> 
> Fact is, there _are_ operators in Ruby - and they do have a precedence.
>    (I am not sure why you put an "only" into the sentence above -
> operator precedence is what a precedence table is about.)

Operators in Ruby are nothing more than syntactic sugar for method 
calls.

The "only" was because the OP wanted the table to include the "meaning" 
of each operator. I am agreeing with you that an operator precedence 
table should show only operator precedence :-)
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.