From: Robert Klemme <bob.news@...>
Date: 2004-10-14T20:59:32+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby Directions (was Re: quality of error messages)


"Markus" <markus@reality.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1097683458.21256.95.camel@lapdog.reality.com...
> On Wed, 2004-10-13 at 02:19, Robert Klemme wrote:
> > "Markus" <markus@reality.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > > >
> > > > still... for coding, i love slice! / gsub! etc. they are
> > > > amazingly useful constructs. i can't imagine living without
> > > > them :)
> > >
> > >      The odd thing is, all you are generally getting with them is a
bit
> > > of syntactic sugar.  Consider the relationship between:
> > >
> > >     s = gsub(p,v)
> > >     s.gsub!(p,v)
> > >
> > >     i = i + k
> > >     i += k
> >
> > It's not only sugar.  It's different semantics and different
performance
> > (see the other post with the benchmark).  There are enough
circumstances
> > where you don't know whether someone else still holds a reference to
an
> > instance at hand.  As an example, that's the reason why Strings when
used
> > as Hash keys are duped and frozen if they are not yet frozen.
> >
> > Kind regards
> >
> >     robert
> >
>
>      In your previous response to this same post you at least included
> the rest of my statement:
>
> > Unless you have lent a friend a reference to s and are using it to
> > send secret messages, you aren't really depending on the mutability
> > of strings so much as the modifability of variables.
>
>      In my response I further clarified my point, that most users of
> gusb! use it not because they want the modification to affect some other
> reference to the same string, but simply as a shorthand.  Instead of
> trying yet again, to clarify a point that we both obviously understand,
> I will address a more interesting point:
>
>      Why do you keep taking my remarks out of context to "rebut" them?
>
> -- Markus

I don't consider the difference between "s.gsub!(...)" and "s =
s.gsub(...)" syntactic sugar - even in cases where one thinks or knows
that the reference was not leaked.  So although some bit of context was
missing there was no distortion since I disagree with the syntactic sugar
thesis for *all* cases.

Sadly enough, I get the feeling we're talking across each other.  I regret
that.

    robert