From: Steve Litt <slitt@...>
Date: 2005-12-30T02:13:09+09:00
Subject: Re: What is the difference between :foo and "foo" ?

On Thursday 29 December 2005 11:30 am, Austin Ziegler wrote:
> 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

Thanks Austin,

I *think* that article brought me closer to understanding. Armed with your 
article and all the other responses, I replied to Kirk Haines' post with my 
interpretation of what you all were saying.

By the way, your article is obviously needed, and you should probably refine 
it as time goes on. The fact that we had so many responses that at least in 
part contradicted each other indicates to me that symbols are perhaps the 
most surprising element of Ruby, which is otherwise not a surprising language 
at all.

Thanks for the great blog entry.

SteveT
 
Steve Litt
http://www.troubleshooters.com
slitt@troubleshooters.com