On 5/13/07, Xavier Noria <fxn / hashref.com> wrote:
> On May 13, 2007, at 10:32 AM, Robert Dober wrote:
>
> > On 5/13/07, Xavier Noria <fxn / hashref.com> wrote:
> >> Just wanted to point out that the original question is why Ruby core
> >> changed their mind, not what people think in general about relating
> >> String and Symbol. Perhaps the question could be sent to ruby-core as
> >> well.
> > That is indeed a good idea
> >>
> >> -- fxn
> >>
> >>
> > Neverheless we are spot on the thread, are we not? And even if we were
> > drifiting to a related topic that sometimes gives the best
> > discussions.
> >
> > But maybe our arguments are not convincing?
>
> I think that if a couple of simple arguments make clear both classes
> should be unrelated the core team wouldn't even bothered to start
> relating them.
I have the highest respect for the community that works on Ruby2.0.
That however does not make them gods, and they can therefore err.
On one hand I do not bother with the consideration why the have
thought about it when we discussed technical issues - for right or
wrong.

However and I thank you for pointing this out (and reexplaining it,
because I can be quite stubborn (pourquoi penses-tu que je suis mariavec une Bretonne;) they might indeed have had some conceptional ideas
that might be interesting.
This would kill the idea of symbols in the general sense (Smalltalk,
Lisp and Ruby1.8), maybe this was what made them back off?

Sorry if I was slightly aggressive but I still feel that you post was
a little it too severe with us ;).
No the slight misunderstanding came from my failure to understand what
you wanted to say, my fault without doubt.
> would like to know about it.
>
> > What would you want to discuss then?
That was a stupid question of YHS, I know now, what you wanted to talk about :)
> >
> > I do not feel one should be that rigid about OnTopic OffTopic.
> > Well just my 0.02 whatever money you worship.
>
> The discussion itself is OK for me. I just wanted to point out that
> the original question has not been answered, otherwise the thread
> could engage in talking about what people think in general and forget
> it.
Sure but I still have a much more relaxed POV about this, but please
believe me I respect yours too.
>
> -- fxn
>
>
>
Cheers
Robert

-- 
You see things; and you say Why?
But I dream things that never were; and I say Why not?
-- George Bernard Shaw