------art_152121_7836830.1167867521968
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

On 1/3/07, Tom Pollard <tomp / earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 3, 2007, at 5:17 PM, Robert Dober wrote:
> > On 1/3/07, dblack / wobblini.net <dblack / wobblini.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 4 Jan 2007, Robert Dober wrote:
> >>
> >> > (2) OT but still interesting I feel it might be a good
> >> convention that
> >> any
> >> > method changing the object should have a ! suffix, would make
> >> >    programs much more readable, don't you think?
> >>
> >> No.  I would not want to see pop turned into pop! or << turned into
> >> <<! and so forth.
> >
> > You are right especially for operators <<!, looks terrible but
> > would be
> > necessary if one wanted to follow the rationale.
>
> "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." (Emerson).
> Rigid consistency to convention doesn't magically produce a more
> readable API.  I kind of like Matz's interpretation of '!' as meaning
> 'dangerous', rather than 'mutating'.


Could you kindly  explain what dangerous means, than?

TomP
>
>
> Robert

-- 
"The real romance is out ahead and yet to come. The computer revolution
hasn't started yet. Don't be misled by the enormous flow of money into bad
defacto standards for unsophisticated buyers using poor adaptations of
incomplete ideas."

- Alan Kay

------art_152121_7836830.1167867521968--