< :the previous in number
^ :the list in numerical order
> :the next in number
P :the previous (in thread)
N :the next article (the next thread)
|<:the top of this thread
>|:the next thread
^ :the parent (reply-to)
_:the child (an article replying to this)
>:the elder article having the same parent
<:the youger article having the same parent
---:split window and show thread lists
| :split window (vertically) and show thread lists
~ :close the thread frame
.:the index
..:the index of indices
"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.