From: Nathaniel Talbott <nathaniel@...>
Date: 2004-02-03T10:35:14+09:00
Subject: Re: Destructive String Methods

On Feb 2, 2004, at 19:23, John W. Long wrote:

> I was hoping for something other than that. I like to maintain forward
> compatibility.
>
> Of course some of this process could be automated by cycling through 
> the
> methods and aliasing and redefining methods that end in !, but this 
> wouldn't
> work for << or other methods that don't have the !.

I don't know what you're doing with it, but this seems to be begging 
for a custom object. Perhaps the difficulty of doing what you want to 
is Ruby's way of telling you to adjust your design. Just a thought.


Nathaniel

<:((><