From: Chad Perrin <perrin@...>
Date: 2006-07-29T05:28:57+09:00
Subject: Re: does ":" have an anolog in another language?

On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 05:11:35AM +0900, ara.t.howard@noaa.gov wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 dblack@wobblini.net wrote:
> 
> >I'd just call them symbols, or Symbol objects (just as with strings, 
> >arrays,
> >etc.).
> 
> i like 'symbol literal' as in
> 
>   array literal => [42]
>   hash literal => {42=>42}
>   symbol literal => :foo

. . . except that doesn't point out the object-orientedness of it.  The
reason I brought up attaching something related to object oriented
programming to the word "symbol" was as a means of contrasting with an
older and, in many cases, better-known use of "symbols" in programming
(a use that is, in fact, almost identical except for that pesky OO-ness
of Ruby).

-- 
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
"A script is what you give the actors.  A program
is what you give the audience." - Larry Wall