On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 04:18:31PM -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 11:22:02AM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> > Does the change from ?: to ??:: mean that we can have '?' as a valid
> > character in an identifier? I quite like the ruby/scheme idiom of
> > having boolean methods ending in a question mark. eg:
> >
> > sub is_visible? {...}
>
> I was gonna suggest that pre-Apoc 3 but ran into the same trouble with ?:
>
> Hmm, $obj.meth! is a syntax error, but func! isn't. Damn.
>
> For those of you that don't know, func! is another Ruby idiom that
> differentiates between the version of a function that returns it's
> results and the one which alters it's arguments in place.
So, could you then apply that to method invocation as well:
$obj.meth1!.meth2!.meth3
I'm just trying to avoid:
$obj is meth1 is meth2.meth3
Which does not scan in my primative primate brain.
--
Aaron Sherman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for GPG info. Fingerprint:
www.ajs.com/~ajs 6DC1 F67A B9FB 2FBA D04C 619E FC35 5713 2676 CEAF
"Write your letters in the sand for the day I'll take your hand
In the land that our grandchildren knew." -Queen/_'39_
