From: "Sean E. Russell" <ser@...>
Date: 2004-09-09T21:51:05+09:00
Subject: Re: "destructiveness" of delete

--Boundary-02=_yGFQBRvPS1aSjlf
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On Wednesday 01 September 2004 21:03, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> There were no big reason than "they had different origins" as I stated
> before.  Probably it was wrong naming, I admit.  I'm afraid that
> unifiying behavior (to either direction) would cause serious problems
> more than it would solve.  Any realistic idea, anyone?

Add Array#delete!, deprecate Array#delete, and in the next major version=20
upgrade, change the behavior so that #delete returns an array, and the=20
original is unmodified (Array#delete -> Array#clone#delete! ; self).

But I agree with David that having methods by the same name with different=
=20
behaviors is confusing.  It was brilliant of you to use "?" to illustrate=20
queries and "!" to differentiate state-changing methods from methods that=20
return a *copy* of an object with different state; it seems a shame to not =
be=20
consistent in the core classes in using them.


=2D-=20
### SER  =20
### Deutsch|Esperanto|Francaise|Linux|XML|Java|Ruby|Aikido
### http://www.germane-software.com/~ser  jabber.com:ser  ICQ:83578737=20
### GPG: http://www.germane-software.com/~ser/Security/ser_public.gpg

--Boundary-02=_yGFQBRvPS1aSjlf
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Description: signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBBQFGyP0KxygnleI8RAhaNAKCKmShaxxhQdFSHjbkeFt2M7nlcQwCff6Yp
LdymlQkQFHgPRTmXhlws0wU=
=TRVV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Boundary-02=_yGFQBRvPS1aSjlf--