From: Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...>
Date: 2005-12-30T01:30:29+09:00
Subject: Re: What is the difference between :foo and "foo" ?

On 29/12/05, Steve Litt <slitt@earthlink.net> wrote:
> They wouldn't exist, or they wouldn't be called symbols. If I'm referring to
> an instance instead of a value, I could call it &variable as in C, or I could
> call it :variable, but in that case I'd call it a reference, not a symbol.

http://www.oreillynet.com/ruby/blog/2005/12/symbols_strings_methods_and_va.html

When I do the following:

  attr_accessor :foo

I am not referencing anything. I am naming something. There is no
analogue between a Ruby Symbol and a C/C++ reference or pointer.
Symbols name things, and they are important enough that they are
intrinsic types just like Strings, Arrays, Hashes, and Integers. What
makes Symbols "special" in the current implementation is that a Symbol
is created for every named item.

  >> olds = Symbol.all_symbols; nil
  nil
  >> quuxl = 0
  0
  >> Symbol.all_symbols - olds
  [:quuxl]

But as I stated in the blog entry I posted above, the Symbol is just a
name. What gives a Symbol its power is the thing that uses it, such as
attr_accessor. Symbols are names. No more, no less.

Really, I think that people create the confusion for themselves,
expecting them to be more than they are.

-austin
--
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com
               * Alternate: austin@halostatue.ca