Hi --

On Sun, 2 Dec 2007, John Joyce 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

I think the whole question of what the best names were for those
methods would have to be revisited. Since push and pop are, by
convention and tradition, object-mutating methods, it would be very
weird to suddenly have "non-dangerous" versions of them that didn't
change the object, and to define "danger" as behaving the way push and
pop are always (as far as I know) understood to behave.


David

-- 
Upcoming training by David A. Black/Ruby Power and Light, LLC:
    * Intro to Rails, London, UK, December 3-6 (by Skills Matter)
See http://www.rubypal.com for details and 2008 announcements!