<dblack / wobblini.net> wrote in message 
news:Pine.LNX.4.64.0603150822080.17960 / wobblini.net...
> Hi --
>
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006, Robert Klemme wrote:
>
>> Ah, don't bother.  The API of the standard lib has it's humps and bumps 
>> (for example not fully consistent usage of ! for destructive methods 
>> etc.) so it's normal to fall into one or the other pit initially.
>
> I have to leap to the defense of ! :-)  It really is consistent:
>
>   * given meth and meth!, meth! is the more "dangerous" version
>   * "dangerous" often means "receiver-changing", but definitely
>       does not have to mean that

Although it's certainly the most common use of "!".

>   * methods whose names already imply receiver-changing don't
>       have a ! because they don't need one, and also ! methods
>       only come in pairs with a non-! equivalent.  (It would be
>       hard to imagine what "Replace the contents of this string
>       object, but without changing the object" would mean....)
>
> "Implying receiver-changing" is of course in the eyes of Matz :-)  But
> while there are judgements, I don't think there's any inconsistency.

Um, yes.  I should print this out and place it in front of my monitor. 
Somehow I keep forgetting this definition - must be some old newsgroup 
thread having anchored deep in my subconscious.

Thanks for putting that straight!

Kind regards

    robert