From: Marnen Laibow-Koser on
Tony Arcieri wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Florian AƟmann
> <florian.assmann(a)email.de>wrote:
>
>> Gaah, close this thread! ;)
>>
>
> I suppose the whole discussion is moot as Ruby will likely never see a
> ++
> operator.
>
> I was just trying to make clear the limitation wasn't a technical one,
> and
> further show how a ++ operator could be "Ruby-like" while still
> retaining
> C/C++/Java-like semantics.

And as others have made clear, you are incorrect.

Best,
--
Marnen Laibow-Koser
http://www.marnen.org
marnen(a)marnen.org
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

From: Tony Arcieri on
[Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]

On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Marnen Laibow-Koser <marnen(a)marnen.org>wrote:

> And as others have made clear, you are incorrect.
>

What exactly is it you think I'm "incorrect" about?

--
Tony Arcieri
Medioh/Nagravision

From: Joshua Ballanco on
On Nov 8, 2009, at 3:01 PM, Tony Arcieri wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Marnen Laibow-Koser <marnen(a)marnen.org>wrote:
>
>> And as others have made clear, you are incorrect.
>>
>
> What exactly is it you think I'm "incorrect" about?

I apologize, but I feel the need to interject:

http://xkcd.com/386/

...that is all.

- Josh
From: Marnen Laibow-Koser on
Tony Arcieri wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Marnen Laibow-Koser
> <marnen(a)marnen.org>wrote:
>
>> And as others have made clear, you are incorrect.
>>
>
> What exactly is it you think I'm "incorrect" about?

The last assertion you made about the ++ operator. Read the recent
posts from Seebs and others. Make sure you understand them.

Best,
--
Marnen Laibow-Koser
http://www.marnen.org
marnen(a)marnen.org

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

From: Tony Arcieri on
[Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]

On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Marnen Laibow-Koser <marnen(a)marnen.org>wrote:

> The last assertion you made about the ++ operator. Read the recent
> posts from Seebs and others. Make sure you understand them.
>

I read and responded to them. Was there something about my responses you
didn't like, aside from my initial confusion with a dangling method from a
previously defined class? :)

--
Tony Arcieri
Medioh/Nagravision