On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 4:22 PM, Steven Schveighoffer <schvei...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Bill Baxter Wrote: > >> Good counterpoints to my argument. So I give up on that line. >> >> Here's another, how do you implement the opBinary_r operators with >> opDispatch? > > Kinda cooky, but what about this: > > a + b -> b.opDispatch!("r+" )(a)
That's what I had in mind too, so I guess it's not so hard to guess. Really the _r convention is also kooky. We're just more used to that. So this isn't really a strong argument for separating opBinary out of opDispatch. But that is part of why I was asking about opIn -- if opIn_r's spelling remains "opIn_r" then we will have both conventions to deal with. Not so good. But if that one's changing to opDispatch!"in" also, then we'll need opSomething!"rin". Which is kookier than "r+", I think, but at least maintains consistency. But there is a problem. It means you can't opDispatch on a method called "rin". So I think there would have to be some non-symbol char in the "r" prefix used. Maybe "r:+", "r:+=", "r:in". Or just a space -- "r +", "r in", ... etc. But now it's a notch less intuitive. --bb