From: Robert Dober Date: 2007-01-04T07:27:25+09:00 Subject: Re: Little Things ------=_Part_151129_9225318.1167863242914 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 1/3/07, dblack@wobblini.net wrote: > > Hi -- > > On Thu, 4 Jan 2007, Robert Dober wrote: > > > On 1/3/07, ara.t.howard@noaa.gov wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, 4 Jan 2007, [ISO-8859-1] Paulo K=F6ch wrote: > > > It is not frequent that I dare not do agree with Gurus like Ara (1) but > I > > have a very strong feeling that the ! suffix should indicate an object > > inplace change instead of the object not being touched, as e.g. in sub > vs. > > sub! (2) etc. > > I feel it is not a good idea to define send! as mentioned above. > > ! doesn't mean the object changes; Sorry to be picky, but I know that and did not claim that it means that. I particularly dislike the definition *dangerous* but I am aware of it. As = a matter of fact it seems too vague for me. it means that the method is a > "dangerous" version of the same method without the !. The idea is > that send! is "dangerous" in the sense that it will break through the > private-method barrier, while send will not. Would be consistent I agree (and dangerous makes sense in this context), bu= t again just not to get lost, I was voting for a concept not postulating it. Sorry if that was not clear. Sorry for the 2nd post, I somehow did not get your post in one piece :( Cheers Robert --=20 "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_151129_9225318.1167863242914--