From: Robert Dober <robert.dober@...>
Date: 2007-01-04T07:17:21+09:00
Subject: Re: Little Things

------=_Part_150817_7265373.1167862634733
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

On 1/3/07, dblack@wobblini.net <dblack@wobblini.net> wrote:
>
> Hi --
>
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2007, Robert Dober wrote:
>
> > (2) OT but still interesting I feel it might be a good convention that
> any
> > method changing the object should have a ! suffix, would make
> >    programs much more readable, don't you think?
>
> No.  I would not want to see pop turned into pop! or << turned into
> <<! and so forth.


You are right especially for operators <<!, looks terrible but would be
necessary if one wanted to follow the rationale.
I feel it would be nice to have it, but I agree such a paradigm change
cannot take place anymore in a mature language.

All that said I really like the idea of seeing in a method call if an object
changes or not, look for example at C++, the information is in the
declaration "const" would it not be much better in the usage, e.g. in the
method call?

Coming back to Tom's idea of do! vs do, to be consistent we would need a {!
vs {, no? and we are not talking methods anymore.

So #send! and do! ? maybe not.

Cheers
Robert



David
>
> --
> Q. What is THE Ruby book for Rails developers?
> A. RUBY FOR RAILS by David A. Black (http://www.manning.com/black)
>     (See what readers are saying!  http://www.rubypal.com/r4rrevs.pdf)
> Q. Where can I get Ruby/Rails on-site training, consulting, coaching?
> A. Ruby Power and Light, LLC (http://www.rubypal.com)
>
>
Robert

-- 
"The real romance is out ahead and yet to come. The computer revolution
hasn't started yet. Don't be misled by the enormous flow of money into bad
defacto standards for unsophisticated buyers using poor adaptations of
incomplete ideas."

- Alan Kay

------=_Part_150817_7265373.1167862634733--