From: bertrandmuscle@...
Date: 2005-03-28T05:09:48+09:00
Subject: Re: ! haphazard

Thank you for the information.

It doesn't seem that you can chain them either, which is too bad.

I'm just surprised by this-- that's a pretty glaring inconsistency. It 
should be in everything or nothing.



Daniel Amelang wrote:
> Gotcha. Well, I can tell you firsthand about the controversies of the
> 'bang' methods (like 'sort!', etc). Since they really aren't a
> necessity (you can get along with just the non-bang versions) and ruby
> has only relatively recently acquired sort_by, I bet they just didn't
> get around to writing the bang version of sort_by.
> 
> FYI, bang methods have been found to be only slightly more efficient
> than their non-bang versions ('sort' and 'sort!' being pretty much the
> same, efficiency-wise) In case it helps, we discussed bang methods
> quite extensively last week:
> 
> http://ruby-talk.org/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/134200
> http://ruby-talk.org/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/134262
> 
> I've recently fallen back to only using the non-bang version of
> methods and the only thing I've missed is the expressiveness of my
> code (e.g. c'mon you 'reject!', 'squeeze!' the 'next!' 'sub!', you
> 'succ!'er)
> 
> It's late.
> 
> Dan
> 
>