I like Tomas's idea the best. Generics are not native to Ruby, so most people using them will likely have a C#/VB background, which means Tomas's syntax would be more familiar.
The "_of" syntax isn't bad, but forcing a ".do" or ".call" at the end isn't ideal, even if it does have a bit of a Ruby flavor. Adding a ".of()" to the class is okay, but many classes may have generic methods even when the class itself is not a generic. (I'm thinking primarily of static and extension method classes here.) Passing the generic types as the first parameters seems the most explicit and understandable translation to me. ~ Ryan On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 3:12 PM, Jimmy Schementi < jimmy.scheme...@microsoft.com> wrote: > Here are the ideas that stand out to me: > > > > I like Tomas's idea, since it reads like C#/VB, but adding an argument to > the front urks me: > > > > content.load of(Texture2D), "mytexture" > > > > Shri, having the "_of" appended to a generic method name and requiring a > ".do" after it is how you would work with lambdas (except you do ".call"), > but since we're talking about .NET methods, not .NET delegates. So, I'd like > the syntax to look more like a method call. Also, as Tomas says, mangling > gets more complicated ... > > > > content.load_of(Texture2D).call "mytexture" > > > > How about adding an "of" method to the class/object, to put the class in a > generic "mode"? The method probably shouldn't be called "of", but you get > the idea. It reads different than C#, but seems the most Rubyesk without > changing the arguments. > > > > content.of(Texture2D).load "mytexture" > > > > Thoughts? If no one likes my idea, I think Tomas's is a fine compromise. > > ~js > -- Ryan Riley ryan.ri...@panesofglass.org http://panesofglass.org/ http://wizardsofsmart.net/
_______________________________________________ Ironruby-core mailing list Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
