From: Chad Perrin <perrin@...>
Date: 2010-02-20T11:27:31+09:00
Subject: Re: strings combine

--gatW/ieO32f1wygP
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 09:59:54AM +0900, Rick DeNatale wrote:
>=20
> Second, variables in Ruby are untyped references to objects, and not
> objects themselves.

I think this is really the key here.  With this code, we have two literal
objects:

    'foo' 'bar'

With this code, however, we have references to objects:

    a =3D 'foo'
    b =3D 'bar'
    a b

=2E . . which would be why they behave differently in terms of the
principles of the Ruby language's design.

That . . . or it's an accident of implementation.  I guess the question
then is whether the fact that references to string objects behave
differently from literal string objects in this case is the result of a
conscious decision or just an emergent property of the implementation.

--=20
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]

--gatW/ieO32f1wygP
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (FreeBSD)

iEYEARECAAYFAkt/Rn4ACgkQ9mn/Pj01uKWOzgCgtl6wXJjewGGnZmS3TlgZXS9C
aDEAoKroilo8z8AEHivhcfEgIxBfhH9a
=HXgp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--gatW/ieO32f1wygP--