I think Gavin is right... we don't "add" strings, we concatenate them. 
Using the + operator to mean "concatenate" violates our eighth grade 
algebra sensibilities.  It's, um, surprising. 

Note that the often-awkward Perl uses . as a string concatenation 
operator, not +.  This is one of the things Perl got right and Ruby got 
wrong, imho.





dblack / candle.superlink.net
09/10/02 09:35 AM
Please respond to ruby-talk

 
        To:     ruby-talk / ruby-lang.org (ruby-talk ML)
        cc: 
        Subject:        Re: Larry Wall's comments on Ruby

Hello --

On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, nico wrote:

> On September 10, 2002 04:38 am, Gavin Sinclair wrote:
>
> > I'm not convinced that it's unnatural.  We don't know the types of a 
and
> > b, and for some objects a and b, a + b != b + a.
> >
> > I'm interested what you think the alternative is, or an argument 
against
> > the above, and how you would like to see a + b defined in Ruby.
> >
> > Gavin
>
> I find that highly unnatural because we've been learning since grade 
school
> that a + b = b + a.
>
> If the objects don't satisfy that property they should be using a 
different
> symbol.

On the other hand, in grade school you probably weren't adding
strings.


David

-- 
David Alan Black                      | Register for RubyConf 2002!
home: dblack / candle.superlink.net     | November 1-3
work: blackdav / shu.edu                | Seattle, WA, USA
Web:  http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav | http://www.rubyconf.com