On Sun, Feb 04, 2007 at 04:49:08AM +0900, Trans wrote:
> 
> 
> On Feb 3, 2:17 pm, gwtm... / mac.com wrote:
> > On Feb 3, 2007, at 12:12 PM, Trans wrote:
> >
> > > Though it will undoubtedly be less useful in Ruby 2.0 when
> > > string and symbol hash keys key for the same entry, it is still useful
> > > in other ways.
> >
> > I seem to remember that matz backed off from this idea.
> 
> I think he backed off making Symbol a subclass of String, but I think
> he's still considering auto-coercing symbol to string, or at the very
> least that they will have some sort of equality for use as hash keys.
> Matz?
> 
Incidently, I'd like to point out why I think that's an especially bad
idea (only equivalent in hashes)
["foo", :foo, 2].uniq #=> ["foo", 2]
[1, 1.0, 2].uniq #=> [1, 1.0, 2]
But; 1 == 1.0 and :foo != "foo" (at least if the equality _only_ applies
in hashes, in #hash and #eql? IOW).

I find it very "warty".
> T.
>