On 05.01.2009 03:38, Tom Cloyd wrote:
> Robert Klemme wrote:
>> On 04.01.2009 14:48, Tom Cloyd wrote:
>>> I guess what confused me is that I bring to Ruby the notion that if a 
>>> symbol causes something to happen, as "?" clearly does in my example 
>>> (it produces the integer code for a character),
>> In this case nothing "happens" (see below).  It is just another 
>> syntactical way to express an integer constant.
>>
>>> its' an operator or method. I'm not unfamiliar with linguistics. I 
>>> don't see the equivalence between a string delimiter, or a character 
>>> that signals the beginning of a symbol, and a symbol that is actually 
>>> productive of something. Makes no sense to me at all, in fact. Maybe 
>>> I'm failing to grasp some transformative concept which changes how 
>>> things work in the Ruby world.
>>>
>>> Seeing operators as methods makes some real sense, on the other hand. 
>>> "=" produces something out of what it's given. It doesn't just change 
>>> meaning, which is all that happens with quotes or ":". That's the 
>>> distinction I'm seeing, and it seems valid.
>> I am not sure what you mean by "change meaning".  Can you elaborate?
> Meaning, in linguistics as I understand it,

Unfortunately we're in the domain of programming languages which is 
quite different from linguistics.  Part of my difficulty understanding 
you is probably caused by the fact that you seem to try to tackle 
problems of computer languages with tools (terms and theories) from a 
complete different domain.  While both domains happen to share terms I 
think it is not helpful to try to apply linguistics (i.e. the science of 
natural languages) to computer languages.  It may actually hinder 
understanding.

> Ditto for the use of ":" in symbols. The """ 
> and the ":" are context indicators, but produce nothing. Not so for "+" 
> in "a+b" or, I think "?a".

Actually I believe that "?a" does not belong in the same category as 
"a+b" because, as Dave and I have pointed out already, "?a" is just 
another way to write the integer 97 ("97", "0141" and "0x61" are other 
ways to write 97).

>>> I'll keep thinking about it.
>> Basically "?a" is just another textual representation for the integer 
>> 97 which happens to be the ASCII code of character "a".  It differs 
>> from string delimiters because the expression "foo" is actually a 
>> String constructor - it will create a new String object whenever it is 
>> executed:
>>
> A "textural representation"  that PRODUCES something?

I did not mention "produce" in the context of - where do you take that from?

> Doesn't make sense 
> to me. Representations simply represent. They "stand for" something 
> else, and do no more.

Yes, all these character sequences ("?a", "97", "0141" and "0x61") 
represent the Fixnum instance which in term is a technical 
representation (i.e. data) of the (mathematical) number 97.  If an 
expression of a Ruby program is evaluate that contains any of these 
tokens, the token (which is an expression as well, more precisely a 
constant expression) evaluates to the said Fixnum instance.

> Now, I can define method X, and then say that X "stands for" the method 
> specification. That's true, from the compiler's point of view, among 
> other things. But to say no more is misleading. "X" can be called, at 
> which point it ACTS. "Tom" - my name can also be called, but when one 
> does so IT doesn't spring into action at all. I might, but IT cannot.

It does, as my example demonstrated.  Opposed to "?a" "'Tom'" is not a 
constant expression but a String constructor.  (See my example below 
which I took the liberty to put together again.)

> There is, I therefore assert, a fundamental difference here, and I think 
> you're seeing that two different things have the same feature and 

Actually I pointed out that "?a" and "'Tom'" are not the same sort of 
thing.  (On a certain level they are of course: both are valid syntax 
constructs (tokens) of the Ruby language.  Actually, both are even 
expressions which happen do have different semantics - constant vs. non 
constant).

> concluding from that that they are the same sort of thing.

Again, I do not know where you take that from.  This is certainly 
nothing I have intended to convey.

> That argument 
> is obviously flawed. "It's incomplete, as my "Tom" demonstrations shows. 
> You say "Basically "?a" is just another textual representation for..." - 
> I'd agree, except for that "just". That single word makes the statement 
> incorrect, to my mind, and also reveals the problem I'm addressing.

Not at all.  There are many ways to write down 97 in a Ruby program (as 
I have shown above).  In that sense "?a" is just another way to write it 
down (assuming "97" is considered the most commonly used way).

>> irb(main):003:0> 3.times { x = "foo"; puts x, x.object_id }
>> foo
>> 1073491940
>> foo
>> 1073492040
>> foo
>> 1073491880
>> => 3
>> irb(main):004:0>

Cheers

	robert

-- 
remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end