On 5/15/05, Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A few days ago, when typing ./pugs,... You can guess the rest :)
> I suggest
> to mean $?SELF.method, and
> 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
> 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
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. :-)