Austin Ziegler <halostatue / gmail.com> wrote:
> That's not inconsistent; you're just not understanding. Matz posted
> about this some time back and its a perfectly clear and consistent
> way of working. Let's say you have an empty Array, 'a':

Thanks for the explanation!

> It's regular. It's explained. It makes sense. It just doesn't work
> like a P language. I doubt you'll find many experienced Ruby
> programmers -- or novice Ruby programmers who don't expect Ruby to
> act like a P language -- who are confused about this issue.

I don't really understand why you bring up P languages.  It's complex
and unexpected behaviour that you have explained the cause of, but I
fail to see why this particular Ruby Way is more useful or desireable.

Seems mostly like an implementation detail to me but it's good to know
there is an explanation.  I probably missed the point. :-)

Cheers,
Navin.