unifying hash and proc syntax

[Joel VanderWerf]

Hey, crazy idea. Why not use the same syntax for hashes and arrays? For
example:

{
1 => 2,
2 => 3,
3 => 4,
|x|
x + 1
}

This is essentially a hash with a default_proc that adds 1 to its argument.

Leave out the => pairs and you get something that acts like a proc.
Leave out the |...|... construct and you get something that acts like a
hash. With both, it's a hash with a default proc.

It's backwards compatible.

Are there any syntactic ambiguities?

 

[Joel VanderWerf]

Hey, crazy idea. Why not use the same syntax for hashes and arrays? For

^^^^^^
erm, procs

 

[Hal Fulton]

Hey, crazy idea. Why not use the same syntax for hashes and arrays? For
example:

{
1 => 2,
2 => 3,
3 => 4,
|x|
x + 1
}

This is essentially a hash with a default_proc that adds 1 to its argument.

Leave out the => pairs and you get something that acts like a proc.
Leave out the |...|... construct and you get something that acts like a
hash. With both, it's a hash with a default proc.

It's a fllor wax AND a dessert topping!

It's backwards compatible.

Delicious! And just look at that shine!

Are there any syntactic ambiguities?

Hmm, not sure. But it certainly gives me a headache to think about it.


Hal

 

[Csaba Henk]

example:

{
1 => 2,
2 => 3,
3 => 4,
|x|
x + 1
}

This is essentially a hash with a default_proc that adds 1 to its argument.

Witty! What's somewhat dubious in it is melting two things which are so
different as objects. A hash is basicly transparent, a proc is basicly
opaque. And an object which has a proc as an attribute in some sense
won't just become a proc...

But, hm, all-in-all, I like it. I always tend to think of hashes as
mappings defined at finitely many places, abstracting from the data
structure which implements it (and gives it its name).

Csaba