* Yukihiro Matsumoto (matz / ruby-lang.org) wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> In message "Re: Thoughts on Ruby"
>     on 02/11/03, Albert Wagner <alwagner / tcac.net> writes:
> 
> |Smalltalk is pure OOP.  Ruby is not.  In Smalltalk the "operators" are simply 
> |messages to an object.  In Ruby "operators" are neither objects nor messages, 
> |but are rather handled as in more conventional languages.  I don't know why 
> |Matz only went part way.   This part-way-ness is also visible in other 
> |aspects of the language such as "if", "while", etc.  In Ruby these things 
> |also are neither object nor message. Whereas in Smalltalk, such constructs 
> |are messages to a Boolean object. 
> 
> They simply cannot implemented as methods.
> 
> "=" is assignment, which is not a method even in Smalltalk (:=).
> ""and", "or" and ".." are control structures, which also are *not*
> methods in most implementation of Smalltalk.

Be careful everyone.  Matz is a sqeak-this and smalltalk-that
conversation this weekend. ;)

> 							matz.
> 

-- 
Paul Duncan <pabs / pablotron.org>        pabs in #gah (OPN IRC)
http://www.pablotron.org/               OpenPGP Key ID: 0x82C29562