On Oct 31, 2009, at 1:03 PM, David A. Black wrote:

> I don't think "replace" has any generalizable semantics. You can't
> replace 2 with 3, for example (fortunately :-)

You could just memcpy a to b (as long as their classes are eql?). If  
for a given object it doesn't make sense, like for singleton ones,  
then you don't allow it.

I wonder if they would take a patch. Is not as if Ruby doesn't already  
have a ton of edge cases anyway.

>> I also wonder why "replace" isn't called "replace!" :)
>
> The !/non-! methods come in pairs. The ! one is the "dangerous" one --
> that is, the one that probably has side-effects, special-case
> semantics, ...

Ok, that makes sense now.

--
	Jordi