"Ross Bamford" <rosco / roscopeco.remove.co.uk> writes:

> On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 22:48:07 -0000, <gwtmp01 / mac.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I think in a very deep, conceptual way, Ruby symbols behave like names
>> just as Ruby fixnums behave like integers.
>>
>
> That's exactly the kind of feeling I was going with when I made that
> naive  'Symbols are names' comment way back when. You put it into
> words better  than I ever could :)
>
> Cheers,
>
> -- 
> Ross Bamford - rosco / roscopeco.remove.co.uk

It's not naive and it's closer to the truth then other descriptions so
far. However, it seems for some people the concept of being able to
represent names directly seems scary and foreign. Probably due to the
numerous years of working with languages that have imporverished
language constructs.

It is the same concept of being able to represent integers directly,
but since most languages allow direct integer representations, it is
not perceived as scary and foreign.

Why would they care about how Symbol is implemented is beyond me, as
if knowing how Fixnum is implemented would enhance their understanding
of what an integer is and how to appropriately use it.

YS.