From: Nikolai Weibull <mailing-lists.ruby-talk@...>
Date: 2005-06-02T09:49:05+09:00
Subject: Re: Method Chaining Issues

ES wrote:

> > > class Foo
> > >   def initialize
> > >     @a = 5
> > >   end
> > >
> > >   attr_accessor :a
> > > end
> > >
> > > foo = Foo.new
> > > foo.a = 6
> > >
> > > Current behaviour aside, should the last line create a new Foo object?
> >
> > Very funny.  Totally different argument,
> 
> This is the counterargument for keeping destructive methods.

No it’s not.  This is an argument for keeping Ruby non-functional.  This
has nothing to do with String#sub vs. String#sub! or Array#sort vs.
Array#sort! for that matter.  When discussing destructive methods with
bangs, we’re discussing the merit of having String#sub! around for
efficiency reasons.  It’s not a discussion of whether to allow objects
to modify their internal state or not.  I know you know this and I know
what you’re trying to say, but this doesn’t lead anywhere,
        nikolai

-- 
Nikolai Weibull: now available free of charge at http://bitwi.se/!
Born in Chicago, IL USA; currently residing in Gothenburg, Sweden.
main(){printf(&linux["\021%six\012\0"],(linux)["have"]+"fun"-97);}