Gregory Seidman wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 11:51:05PM +0900, Peter Hickman wrote:
> } Gregory Seidman wrote:
> [...]
> } >Have you programmed in C++? There is a great deal of value to the idea
> } >of const instances of objects which only allow const methods to be
> } >called on them. I'm not claiming that Ruby should necessarily support
> } >such a thing, but I can certainly understand the desire for it.
> } 
> } I do program is C++ but, as I've said in another reply, I fail to see how
> } this is supposed to be of benefit in a dynamic language such as Ruby and
> } also how would you propose to implement it?
> [...]
>
> The simplest implementation is to override the send() method and list
> non-const methods somewhere. In the send method, check whether the object
> is marked as const and throw an exception if a non-const method is called.
> There are more complicated implementations, but that's the easiest one.
>
>   

Fine, now say how this is supposed to be of benefit to Ruby. What does 
it make doing in Ruby easier and safer than the present way we go about 
doing it?

> } >There is no reason to be insulting. It is not unreasonable to expect
> [...]
> } I was not being insulting, I honestly think that the poster does not 
> } understand the issues. To understand a language you have to learn to use 
> } it, once you do you get passed such superficial issues, such as the use 
> } of ! on the end of a method name, they tend to become forgotten like the 
> } lack of a prefix / postfix increment / decrement operator that people 
> } coming from C++ and Java seem to stumble over as if it was a major 
> } issue. Sure Lisp has lots of brackets and you have to indent things in 
> } Python but once you learn the language these are no longer issues. When 
> } people have problems with Lisp brackets, Python indents or Ruby !s they 
> } haven't even got as far as the syntax of the language let alone gained 
> } an understanding of the heart of the language. Therefore I tend to be 
> } abrupt with such people that then have the temerity to *fix* the 
> } problems that is nothing more than their lack of experience.
>
> Only dead languages never change, and Ruby is emphatically not dead.
> Pleasantly, Ruby is a language in which the community has some say. Matz
> reads the mailing list (at least to some unknown extent; I've seen him
> reply) and if a sufficiently compelling and clear argument for a particular
> feature is posted, perhaps he'll consider it. I think you are also
> confusing his mediocre English skills with a mediocre understanding of
> programming languages.
>   
This is my point, there was no "sufficiently compelling and clear 
argument" given other than it is available in C++.