From: Chris Pine <nemo@...>
Date: 2003-03-29T10:31:54+09:00
Subject: Re: Array question

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hal E. Fulton" <hal9000@hypermetrics.com>

I like interfaces to be simple and elegant and sensible.
My pest control guy kills the bugs. That's all. I don't
want an arrangement where, if I buy him lunch, he will
paint my house for me as well. It's sort of a separation
of concerns issue.
----------------------------

No one's asking *you* to buy him lunch, Hal.  But if Walter needs his house
painted...

:)

I respectfully disagree, but it's such a minor point, especially as the
"work-around" is also a one-liner.

In general, I would add things like this.  Matz has a different view; an
interesting one which, if I don't fully understand it, I can certainly
appreciate it.  He says something like "This isn't what #join means," almost
like he's referring to the platonic form of "join".  Remember the suggestion
for Hash#+ to work like update, but returning a new hash?  Matz was for the
idea, but didn't want to call it "+" because update can mask certain
key-value pairs and he didn't feel like that properly captured the spirit of
what "+" is all about.  (Or something like that.)

How fascinating!  Again, I think I would have gone ahead with it, but you
have to admire that attitude, and the great language we have as a result.

This sort of "purity of essence" idea which runs through all of Ruby seems
vaguely at odds with Paul Graham's "allow the programmer to do everything"
(an admittedly liberal interpretation of his "write a language for brilliant
programmers" idea), though I have difficulty defining just how... things
like disallowing multiple inheritance.  (I'm not complaining about it!  Just
saying.)

Chris