In article <LAW2-F235OFlAnX1ypa0000d458 / hotmail.com>,
Ben Tilly <ben_tilly / hotmail.com> wrote:
>Clemens Hintze <c.hintze / gmx.net> wrote:
>The rest of my reply will have an annoyed tone BECAUSE YOU
>ARE YELLING ABOUT SOMETHING YOU CLEARLY KNOW NOTHING ABOUT
>without having any CAUSE to yell.

Being the original asker of the question.... I really didn't think he
(Clemens) was 'yelling' in his response.  

>  Suppose we see this snippet of code:
>    def what_am_i  (n,m) {
>      n, m
>    }
>
>  well with the proposed rule this should return two
>  things.  But there is already reasonable and defined
>  behaviour if I show you a little more:
>
>    def what_am_i  (n,m) {
>      n, m
>    }
>    end
>
>  which (less obfuscated) is a fairly reasonable
>  function:
>
>    def what_am_i  (n,m)
>      {n, m}
>    end
>
>    what_am_i("a", "hash\n")["a"] #-> "hash"
>
>  Making parsing this kind of construct ambiguous is a
>  rather dangerous design decision.

Yeah, this makes some sense, thanks.

>Seeing you YELL incorrect stuff about other languages
>in response to a reasonable question does take the
>blush off. :-(

Again, I didn't think anybody was yelling (till now, of course).  I didn't
totally understand the original repsonse, but I figured that I needed to
study Ruby a bit more in order to make more sense of it (I assumed the
problem was on my side).

Play nice.  Don't assume bad motives on the part of the other party.
Always assume that the other party may have something important to
contribute even if you don't agree with their viewpoint.  If you think
that they're factually wrong, point it out to them, but do so in the
humility of knowing that you've been wrong before.  Enough preaching.

Anyway, I didn't mean to start some kind of argument here, my apologies.

Phil

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------