From: thunk <gmkoller@...>
Date: 2010-04-01T01:20:08+09:00
Subject: Re: return number of spaces at the beginning of a line

On Mar 31, 7:19 am, Aldric Giacomoni <ald...@trevoke.net> wrote:
> thunk wrote:
> > Adding a '+' method to Kernel for symbols would reduce code clutter
> > but still ultimately end up requiring conversion from symbols to
> > strings to do
> > the append operation, right?
>
> > (ruby 1.9 is allowing me to do more with the ?! chars than I think I
> > remember 1.8 where I think I remember getting some errors around
> > this. )
>
> > I would not normally care much, or feel a particular need to
> > understand what is going on under the hood, but I have a performance
> > issue right here and this happens be one of the things I'm working on.
>
> > comments?
>
> > then, what would be the best form to add two symbols together (ending
> > up with a symbol again)
>
> You're thinking about it the wrong way. A symbol is a pointer to a
> specific address in memory, kinda like a variable.
> Do you expect this code to work?
>
> a = 5
> b = NeuralNetwork.new
> puts (a + b).to_s
>
> .. You'll get an error, because a and b are just pointers to the
> objects. Symbols are a bit different; while they are "faster" than plain
> variables, or than strings, they never get garbage collected (I can not
> explain any more than this, but many around here know Ruby's deep magic
> well), and they always refer to the same memory space.
>
> I think you're using symbols inappropriately. What -are- you doing with
> them? If you need to add two names together, then my guess is, just
> stick with strings.
> --
> Posted viahttp://www.ruby-forum.com/.

just quickly: they start life as a method name so i was hoping they
could stay symbols - but i need a tie breaker for the one level key
that becomes a simpleton method (name) in this "whiteboard" class.  i
keep trying to use all symbols.  note:  ruby is not fighting me with
the /?!/ - so the door seems open to bite the bullet and convert ->
append -> reconvert but it "hurts" my sense of symmetry - but thanks -
that makes perfect sense (and now that i think about it- it had to be
that way, almost).

thunk