From: Conrad Schneiker <schneiker@...>
Date: 2001-09-11T21:19:00+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:21065] Re: RCR: non-bang equivalent to []=

Hi,

"Yukihiro Matsumoto" <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
> In message "[ruby-talk:20834] Re: RCR: non-bang equivalent to []="
>     on 01/09/04, "Conrad Schneiker" <schneiker@jump.net> writes:
>
> |> > I'd like to have bang and non-bang versions of each and every method.
> |> > The names should just differ in the !, like collect and collect!
> |
> |IIRC from previous discussions, isn't this precisely the convention that
> |Scheme uses? (IIRC, this is where Matz got the idea for his particular
> |variation.)
>
> It is the origin of the bang name idea, but in fact they are
> different.

I didn't mean to imply otherwise, but I now see my choice words wasn't very
good. Sorry for the confusion.

> As Hal pointed out, Scheme's bang is the mark for
> self-modifying functions, on the other hand, Ruby's bang is the mark
> for "more dangarous alternative; handle with care".

Conrad