On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Peter Hickman wrote:

> > wouldn't it be cool if you could define custom literal representations for your
> > classes?

> What problem is this meant to solve as i cant see a use for such a thing.

Using ruby to solve domain specific issues. For example, 3D stuff need a
lot of matrices and vecotrs. It would be nice to have literal for those,
now I need to do

 Vector.new(3,5,6)

This can get rather verbose in the long run, defining a literal would allow
me to do

 <3,5,6>

or whatever.

Yes, this would definitely be cool. And useful. I am thinking this is
somehing that should have a file based scope: you would explicitly have to
enable the syntax in each file you want to use it in.

Perhaps the simples option would be to define '<' ... '>' and some others
as used bindable lietarals. It would be artificially resticted, but much
more implementable then a totally general case.

  -- Nikodemus