On 5/15/05, Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A few days ago, when typing ./pugs,... You can guess the rest :) > > I suggest > > ./method > > to mean $?SELF.method, and > > ../method > > to mean $?SELF.SUPER::method, or however that's normally written. > > This syntax doesn't clash with anything, doesn't introduce whitespace > asymmetry and doesn't require anything other than ASCII. > > If you go back to what inspired it, the mnemonic becomes clear: unix > filesystems. However, it's far fetched and none of the people I've asked > think it's a good one. Still, it works for me and may even work in > textbooks. > > The best thing about this new proposal is that everyone so far agrees > that it's feasible, easy to write and not ugly.
I have tried, but I can't make myself like it. The syntax surely is feasible, easy to write and not ugly, but it makes me think about objects in terms of pathnames with . meaning $?SELF and / where "other languages" use the dot, except I can't use it for anything but a method call on the implicit receiver. It also makes me want to propose zsh-extended-glob-compatibility syntax for objects so I can have method/attribute slices, and then I end up curled up in a corner, scared and shaking. But maybe I should just get used to that. :-) > Juerd Martin
