Hi --

On Wed, 16 May 2007, Logan Capaldo wrote:

> On 5/16/07, Trans <transfire / gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On May 16, 5:44 am, "Sven Suska (enduro)" <sven71... / suska.org> wrote:
>> > Subclassing alone would not be enough, to solve the problem above,
>> > also, String#== and Symbol#== would have to be defined such that  "a" == 
>> :a
>> > And also #hash would have to be defined accordingly.
>> >
>> > Then you would still have the two different kinds of objects ("a" and :a)
>> > but they would behave quite the same  except for modifying methods.
>> 
>> While I think Symbol probably could use at least few of String's
>> manipulation methods, putting that aside, I wonder how it would effect
>> things just to make :a == "a" ?
>> 
> Well there is precendent, 2 == 2.0 and so on

With symbols being as integer-like as they are string-like, though,
it's really equally similar to:

   2 == :"2"

> On the other hand, what should happen in case statements? Maybe it
> would acutally be better to make :a === 'a' but not :a == 'a'

I guess as long as :a === :a was still true, that might be a good way
to express the fact that "this is the string of which this symbol is a
case", or something like that.


David

-- 
Q. What is THE Ruby book for Rails developers?
A. RUBY FOR RAILS by David A. Black (http://www.manning.com/black)
    (See what readers are saying!  http://www.rubypal.com/r4rrevs.pdf)
Q. Where can I get Ruby/Rails on-site training, consulting, coaching?
A. Ruby Power and Light, LLC (http://www.rubypal.com)