matz / ruby-lang.org (Yukihiro Matsumoto) writes:

>   (b) make numbers mutable, then prepare "++" method to alter the
>       number value.
> 
> You were talking about (b) above, right?  I think it's wrong way to
> go.  It is confusing. I believe almost everyone assume numbers to be
> immutable consciously or unconsciously.  Also it would be performance
> penalty.

I agree. In the back of my mind, I was thinking about the slightly
special copy semantics of Strings and string literals, and wondering
if the same could be made to work for Fixnums. However, as Nat pointed
out, that road also leads to madness of a different kind.

Added to which, as you point out, I find myself using numbers a lot
less in Ruby anyway.

Now what I'd _really_ like to see is &a take the address of 'a', and
*(&a+1) return the next object after 'a'. Now that _would_ be a
language...



Dave