so the next question is do you think those could be useful additions?
or, can the push/pop/shift/unshift in that case (as opposed to the
equivalent! term) be gotten in some other way that makes the current
way (no ! methods at all) most advantageous/efficient, since both ends
can currently be achieved.

On Dec 1, 2007 3:52 PM, John Joyce <dangerwillrobinsondanger / gmail.com> wrote:
> To put it another way, consistency for consistency's sake alone is
> not the goal.
> Consistency helps make things somehow predictable, but sometimes it's
> just bloat.
>
> That said, if Ruby had immutable classes, it would be important to have
> push            # return a new Array object with the result of a push
> push!   # alter the Array object in place with the result of push
> pop             # return a new Array object with the result of a pop
> pop!            # alter the Array object in place with the result of pop
>
>