Hi --

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

> Hi,
>
> In message "Re: Symbol#empty? ?"
>    on Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:31:18 +0900, "David A. Black" <dblack / rubypal.com> writes:
>
> |> Which do you prefer?
> |>
> |>  * allowing :""
> |>  * removing Symbol#empty?
> |
> |Removing Symbol#empty would still leave "".intern without :"", which
> |doesn't seem right to me. I would either want to allow :"", or remove
> |all of it -- no :"", no "".intern, no Symbol#empty. On the whole that
> |would probably be my first choice; I'm not convinced that it's
> |meaningful for a symbol to be empty, or for "" to have a symbol
> |representation. But mainly I'd say that the emptiness concept should
> |be either completely present or completely absent.
>
> OK, let me rephrase:  which do you prefer?
>
>  * allowing :""
>  * removing Symbol#empty?; prohibiting "".intern

I prefer the latter. But that's partly because I'm skeptical about the
new string-like symbols in general. I guess if they have a size, they
can be empty. I'm just not sure about their having a size, as well as
knowledge of what case their characters are in, etc. I'm still trying
to process it :-)


David

--
David A. Black
Director, Ruby Power and Light, LLC
Ruby/Rails training and consulting
http://www.rubypal.com