On Fri, Dec 30, 2005 at 05:17:43PM +0900, gwtmp01 / mac.com wrote:
> 
> On Dec 30, 2005, at 2:44 AM, Chad Perrin wrote:
> 
> >On Fri, Dec 30, 2005 at 01:42:39PM +0900, gwtmp01 / mac.com wrote:
> >>
> >>I think one of the hardest things to explain/comprehend
> >>about symbols is that the *only* semantics associated
> >>with a symbol is that there is a one to one mapping from a symbol
> >>object to a sequence of characters. It is this isomorphism that
> >>is the useful (and *only*) property of symbols.
> >
> >If you want a useful introductory description of symbols for someone
> >that hasn't encountered them before, the above is the only part of  
> >your
> >previous email that is taking steps in that direction.
> 
> I wasn't trying to produce a useful introductory description
> of symbols.  Nor do I really think that first paragraph would be all
> that appropriate for that purpose.  'Isomorphism' isn't exactly in
> common use.

Sorry.  I didn't mean to suggest that you must intend to produce a
useful introduction.  I guess I wasn't clear.  I was just saying that
*if* "you" (for some definition of "you") wanted to produce such an
introduction, that one part of your message seemed to be a step in the
right direction.  The language wasn't particularly accessible (as you
point out), but the concepts were, and didn't require a firm grounding
in Ruby to understand them.

-- 
Chad Perrin [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]

unix virus: If you're using a unixlike OS, please forward
this to 20 others and erase your system partition.