On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 4:25 PM, David A. Black <dblack / rubypal.com> wrote:

>
>  & isn't an operator, though; it's a method. I don't know whether
>  that's actually why there's the difference with regard to symbol-izing
>  them, but I think it does at least mostly fall along those lines.
I guess that this is the reason of which I fail to see the reason, but
that is not an important issue to me.
For me it was important to got explained why && was not a method,
which has been nicely accomplished in the meantime.

Cheers
Robert