Hi,

In message "Re: Question: immutable strings as design goal?"
    on 03/08/18, Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair / soyabean.com.au> writes:

|> I rarely have such problems caused by mutable strings.  Besides, Ruby
|> is not a language to keep people away from horror.  You can write
|> ugly, scary, or dangerous programs in Ruby, if you want.  It's cost
|> for freedom.
|
|I don't think his thoughts were on freedon vs restrictions.  It seemed
|that he just thinks strings, for whatever reason, *should* be
|immutable, like numbers.

I know, I know.  Don't take my words seriously.

|As a counter-point, all the freedom in the Ruby world doesn't allow
|you to modify symbols.  Guido obviously believes that all strings
|should be like that.  (And dictionaries, obviously, shouldn't.)

Although you can't change the value of symbols (and numbers), 
you can change their instance variables.

							matz.