From: Gregory Seidman <gsslist+ruby@...>
Date: 2006-03-29T02:38:30+09:00
Subject: Re: Why do some methods names which replace the content in place doesn't have the "!" sign?

On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 11:51:05PM +0900, Peter Hickman wrote:
} Gregory Seidman wrote:
[...]
} >Have you programmed in C++? There is a great deal of value to the idea
} >of const instances of objects which only allow const methods to be
} >called on them. I'm not claiming that Ruby should necessarily support
} >such a thing, but I can certainly understand the desire for it.
} 
} I do program is C++ but, as I've said in another reply, I fail to see how
} this is supposed to be of benefit in a dynamic language such as Ruby and
} also how would you propose to implement it?
[...]

The simplest implementation is to override the send() method and list
non-const methods somewhere. In the send method, check whether the object
is marked as const and throw an exception if a non-const method is called.
There are more complicated implementations, but that's the easiest one.

} >There is no reason to be insulting. It is not unreasonable to expect
[...]
} I was not being insulting, I honestly think that the poster does not 
} understand the issues. To understand a language you have to learn to use 
} it, once you do you get passed such superficial issues, such as the use 
} of ! on the end of a method name, they tend to become forgotten like the 
} lack of a prefix / postfix increment / decrement operator that people 
} coming from C++ and Java seem to stumble over as if it was a major 
} issue. Sure Lisp has lots of brackets and you have to indent things in 
} Python but once you learn the language these are no longer issues. When 
} people have problems with Lisp brackets, Python indents or Ruby !s they 
} haven't even got as far as the syntax of the language let alone gained 
} an understanding of the heart of the language. Therefore I tend to be 
} abrupt with such people that then have the temerity to *fix* the 
} problems that is nothing more than their lack of experience.

Only dead languages never change, and Ruby is emphatically not dead.
Pleasantly, Ruby is a language in which the community has some say. Matz
reads the mailing list (at least to some unknown extent; I've seen him
reply) and if a sufficiently compelling and clear argument for a particular
feature is posted, perhaps he'll consider it. I think you are also
confusing his mediocre English skills with a mediocre understanding of
programming languages.

--Greg