Michael Klishin wrote: >> And so why ain't it a keyword/operator? []= and ||= are, for >> example...
> ||= is concerned with variable binding, and thus a lot different from > some other operators. Letting people override > that would be much more dangerous than other dangerous things Ruby > lets you do. I didn't say to let anyone override it as an operator. The point was that making &: an operator would let the efficiency start at parse time... --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "merb" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/merb?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
