OK... I get it... I understood your argument (although
ya cleared up a few other things), but I still just
didn't GET why you couldn't do a '++' method that
simply did something like 'self = self.succ'

Of course, after actually TRYING that on my own (the
best learning tool ;), I find that I can't modify
self.  I guess that makes sense.  

And I assume Ruby doesn't want to go the way of C# and
have safe vs. unsafe data, right?  How bad would it be
to have a an 'unsafe' object that COULD modify self?

Ah well, this is all pretty pointless for me anyway. 
I've been a C/C++ programmer for nearly a decade now,
and I haven't missed an increment/decrement operator
one bit since trying Ruby.

I love this language ;)

Jason

--- "Hal E. Fulton" <hal9000 / hypermetrics.com> wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Jason Persampieri" <helgaorg / yahoo.com>
> To: "ruby-talk ML" <ruby-talk / ruby-lang.org>
> Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 10:15 PM
> Subject: Re: Things That Newcomers to Ruby Should
> Know (11/24/02)
> 
> 
> 
> > I mean, C doesn't allow 3++ either (well, it may
> ALLOW
> > it, but it doesn't mean anything).  I think that
> > argument is pretty bogus.  
> 
> It's not bogus at all. It's just a simpler
> way of illustrating the fact that Ruby 
> operators operate on objects, not variables.
> 
> This is the same argument, using a variable
> instead of a constant.
> 
>   x = 3
>   y = 3
>   x++   
>   puts y    #  4????
> 
> Hal
> 
>