ts wrote:

>>>>>>"P" == Phil Tomson <ptkwt / aracnet.com> writes:
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>
>P> Yes, I figured that it was being interpreted that way, but my question is 
>P> why?
>
> ruby use `..' for the range operator and the flip-flop operator.
>  
>

Reading the posts in this discussion has been very enlightening for me.  
I finally understand the flip-flop operator, for one thing.  And I think 
I understand the root of the "dislike" some people have for the 
flip-flop:  it uses the same syntax as a completely unrelated (and 
possibly more common) concept, which can make the intuitive leap a bit hard.

I can certainly see the value in the flip-flop, and where I was 
originally on the "team" that was rooting for its removal, I now would 
like to see it remain, but in different form.  What if it used a 
different syntax, but the same semantics?  This would allow the 
flip-flop to be used outside of conditionals, too, since there would be 
no ambiguity involved.

So, instead of '..' and '...', how about something completely new, like 
perhaps '--', or '~~'?  Or even a new keyword, like 'flip' or 
'flipflop'?  It would be nice to also somehow provide a way to access 
some underlying objectified represention of the flip-flop, so that its 
state could be queried and manipulated,

My $0.02.

- Jamis

-- 
Jamis Buck
jgb3 / email.byu.edu

ruby -h | ruby -e 'a=[];readlines.join.scan(/-(.)\[e|Kk(\S*)|le.l(..)e|#!(\S*)/) {|r| a << r.compact.first };puts "\n>#{a.join(%q/ /)}<\n\n"'