On 5/16/07, dblack / wobblini.net <dblack / wobblini.net> wrote: > 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" > I don't think symbols are integer like. (I don't know that they are especially string like either), but I'd be willing to bet a lot more code in the wild would be broken if you removed Symbol#to_s vs. removing Symbol#to_i. Your example really ought to be 2 == :whatever_symbol_whose_to_i_results_in_2 > > 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) > >