< :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
<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