Trans wrote:
> So in a way you are right, it is a kind of two-way inheritance. And if
> you think about the orgins of Symbol one can more understand why.
> Symbols did not originally exit in Ruby. They were added later as a
> light-weight substitute for Strings. So indeed their very existance is
> one intended to easily interchange depeding on the usage.

When were symbols introduced? I think it was quite some time ago.
Definitely a 20th-century feature.

Who described them as a "lightweight substitute for strings"?

>>I think there's a somewhat exaggerated sense of the speed-up factor
>>involved in symbols sometimes.
> 
> That may be the case, but then why have symbols?

They're immutable. They're easier to type. They're singletons in a
sense, so they save memory.


Hal