From: Markus <markus@...>
Date: 2004-10-15T02:21:55+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby Directions (was Re: quality of error messages)

On Thu, 2004-10-14 at 04:59, Robert Klemme wrote:
> "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.

     So do I.  I'm willing to try to correct the problem if you are.

     I did not saying that "it is only syntactic sugar" and certainly
not "for *all* cases" which seems to be the point with which you are
disagreeing.

     I said that, in most cases "all the programmer was getting out of
it" was syntactic sugar*; in other words, that although there are
semantic differences most of the code written using gsub! (note: "most",
not "all") does not rely on them.  

     It was a minor point, perhaps, but I thought it was interesting in
the (now long lost) original context.

    -- Markus


* And, as I previously conceded, some performance advantage--though I
still maintain that distinguishing two forms that are semantically
equivalent for your purposes based on presumed/measured performance
differences is not wise in the long run.