Hi --

I seem not to have gotten anything prior to this post in
this thread, so I'm kind of commenting on all of it in a
lump.  I hope it's not terribly out of context.


On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:

>
> On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, Pit Capitain wrote:
> > On 20 Jan 2003 at 15:49, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> > > In message "Symbols: More Functionality Wanted"
> > >     on 03/01/20, Ryan Pavlik <rpav / nwlink.com> writes:
> > > | (... bind values to symbols ...)
> > > Interesting idea, but I feel like they are responsibility of Binding,
> > > not Symbol.  For example,
> > >   b = binding()
> > >   b.bind(:a, 2)
> > >   b.value(:a)

Binding#bind doesn't sound right to me.  I would say either:

  - bind a symbol to a value, or
  - add a symbol to a binding

but not "bind a symbol to a binding."  At least, that's what my
language sense tells me.

Binding#add, maybe?


David

-- 
David Alan Black
home: dblack / candle.superlink.net
work: blackdav / shu.edu
Web:  http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav