David A. Black wrote:

>   x = 123
>
> x holds the immediate value 123, rather than a reference to it, which
> is the rationale Matz has always given for not having x++ (i.e., it
> would be equivalent to doing 123++ and that would make no sense).

I don't think that's sufficient, else x += 1 would be equivalent to 123 
+= 1. As the RubyGarden wiki says, x++ could easily be syntactic sugar 
for x = x.succ. Rather, I imagine it's an aesthetic matter of: if an 
operation changes the .object_id of a variable, it better contain an 
equals sign in it.

Devin