From: Robert Dober Date: 2007-05-15T20:54:42+09:00 Subject: Re: Why was the "Symbol is a String"-idea dropped? On 5/15/07, enduro (Sven Suska) wrote: > Ooops! > > sorry if I came across rude in any way. > > I don't want to "own" the thread. > But I am interested in my question, > so I was glad that someone repeated it, > at a time when all the answers up to that point had not yet answered it. > > Robert Dober schrieb: > > > The fact that the original idea is a big paradigm shift does not > > answer your question? > > Sorry, no. If someone had told me that this fact was the basis for the > decision of the core team, > that would have answered my question. > (Because the fact alone is not compelling: If a paradigm shift is > possible and good then why not shift?) Sure that was exactly the thing I wanted to discuss and suddenly someone told me hey stay On Topic. That was strange but not rude at all. I mean neither Xavier nor you, you are very civilized and polite people- maybe much more than YHS ;) I just had the feeling that the answers you will get on this list will never correspond to your exact question, and I was wrong as Matz stepped by. I admit that personally I have a big problem with "A symbol is a string", but brighter people than me like Tom and Matz have not or did not have, so maybe indeed I am making too much noise while thinking :(. But please remember too that there are only complicated answers to simple questions ;). > > And also, I thought that this was the right place for posting the question. > (Actually, until yesterday I didn't know that I could post on ruby-core, > I thought it was just for "cracks", because it's read-only on > ruby-forum.com) I definitely should have pointed that out first and than I could have taken all the time to rant/argue/discuss the technical points, oh boy how difficult communication can be sometimes! > > Kind Regards > Sven > Cheers Robert -- You see things; and you say Why? But I dream things that never were; and I say Why not? -- George Bernard Shaw