On 2/16/07, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz / ruby-lang.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In message "Re: Oppinions on RCR for dup on immutable classes"
>     on Fri, 16 Feb 2007 08:55:12 +0900, "Phrogz" <gavin / refinery.com> writes:
>
> |That's a statement of fact, but doesn't explain *why* it's a problem,
> |or (important for an RCR) why it needs to be fixed in the core of the
> |language.
> |
> |What is the use case that is prevented by the problem? What does it
> |make inconvenient? Why should it be changed?
>
> Seconded.  It pretty trivial for us core developers to make dup for
> immutable objects to return themselves, but _I_ don't understand why
> it is needed.  I assume obj.object_id != obj.dup.object_id, and see no
> good reason enough to break the assumption.

+1. If i am trying to dup an object, sometimes it's inconvenient that
it complains,
but most of the time i want to know about it.

I also don't think something like 5.dup has semantic meaning.