Issue #2737 has been updated by Joe Lapp.


Wow, great responses!  After the terse rejection, I wasn't expecting anything.

If I define a method I also get that +@ exception:
  method +'b'

But as Caleb suggested, the following works:
  local +'b'

So then the question is, why *should* this work for locals but not for constants?

Also, it would seem that +'s' never has two functionally valid interpretations - it's ambiguous to the implementation, not to end users.  A choice has been made to impose an implementation limitation on the end user.  I understand the need to do this sometimes to keep implementation complexity under control, but if this is the real reason for keeping this behavior, it might be better to pile this issue on the might-fix-someday list.

I have a lot of Java, C, and C++ under my belt, but I'm coming from a long, painful stint with PHP.  I'm really tired of needless idiosyncrasies.  This is my first one in Ruby, so I'm not complaining, but the Ruby community ought to at least hold the ideal that these might someday be ironed out.

Thanks for taking the time to answer my question!

----------------------------------------
http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/show/2737

----------------------------------------
http://redmine.ruby-lang.org