--0016e64dca94c30e670477850676
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 10:30 PM, Michael W. Ryder <_mwryder55 / gmail.com>wrote:

> Maybe I am missing something
>

Yes, maybe you're missing that I support a unary ++ operator :)

I can see the wisdom in not having it there to begin with though.  I see the
++ operator as something almost inextricably tied to for loops in C.  Ruby
provides better looping mechanisms, like the various Enumerable methods that
take blocks!  Perhaps Matz didn't include a unary ++ operator as
encouragement to use better looping constructs in your code.  If that's the
case, I think he certainly succeeded.

-- 
Tony Arcieri
Medioh/Nagravision

--0016e64dca94c30e670477850676--