--0016e64b0448f8795e0477e83b0b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 8:50 PM, Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair / gmail.com> wrote:

> If implementing ++ requires changes to the parser, that seems like a
> pretty technical limitation to me! :)
>

Assuredly it would require changes to the parser, as "++" presently
lexes/parses as "plus (unary+ value)", and that's not to mention how it
parses in method definitions.  The resulting operation is equivalent to
binary +, unless you're using something like
Methodphitamine<http://jicksta.com/posts/the-methodphitamine>


> BTW in all your posts on the topic, you don't seem to address pre-
> increment vs post-incrememt.  (Forgive me if I'm wrong.)  If Ruby
> implemented ++ and didn't address that, it wouldn't be C or C++
> semantics at all.
>

That's a can of worms I've been trying to avoid, as there are lexing/parsing
ambiguities surrounding the combination of both.  How do you parse a+++b vs
a++++b vs a+++++b?

-- 
Tony Arcieri
Medioh/Nagravision

--0016e64b0448f8795e0477e83b0b--