< :the previous in number
^ :the list in numerical order
> :the next in number
P :the previous (in thread)
N :the next (in thread)
|<:the top of this thread
>|:the next thread
^ :the parent (reply-to)
_:the child (an article replying to this)
>:the elder article having the same parent
<:the youger article having the same parent
---:split window and show thread lists
| :split window (vertically) and show thread lists
~ :close the thread frame
.:the index
..:the index of indices
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
>
>