David A. Black wrote:
>
> Actually Matz has always said that while most ! methods perform
> destructive operations, ! does not *mean* destructive.  It means
> "more dangerous" than the corresponding non-bang method:
>
>    As Hal pointed out, Scheme's bang is the mark for self-modifying
>    functions, on the other hand, Ruby's bang is the mark for "more
>    dangerous alternative; handle with care".
>
> or, elsewhere:
>
>    exit! does not modify anything.  Its ! means "more dangerous" than
>    non bang version.
>

I knew there were exceptions but that's a good example
an existing precedent which weakens my objection quite
substantially (i.e. totally).


[snipped further clarification from you - thanks]


> I think that send/send! would be a lot easier to explain than
> send/fcall, once the general meaning of ! is established.

Definitely !

>
> > With 5 votes in support, I felt there was room for some balance.
> > Any of the +1 voters strong enough to change their mind ?
>
> I find that a rather uncollegial way to put it, [...]

Hmm.  I wondered if there might be a problem with that :(

My intended meaning was that a change of mind would /not/
imply weakness - rather, a reconsideration in light of new
evidence (which turned out to be seriously flawed :/ )

> [...] but in my case, I guess the answer is that I'm "weak" by
> your standards.

My apologies to anyone else who might have read that meaning -
although unintended, I agree - it was there.

>
> David
>


daz