Simon Strandgaard wrote:
> 
> It didn't gave me any choice, users of that language didn't have
> to worry about such details. Maybe because all such ackward problems were
> cut away, kickstarted my programming carrier even though I hardly
> understood any english at that point.

I (sort of) understand the value of programming with training wheels, 
but i the long run it gets in the way and does not teach one to thinking 
clearly about what the are doing, as so many options are simply unavailable.

>>There are various cases where I want to map some string from the outside 
>>world to a method invocation.  For example, when stream processing XML.
>>Any restrictions on naming makes this harder, particularly if I don't 
>>control the naming conventions for the source XML.
>>
> 
> 
> sounds cludgy.

It's actually quite elegant, and takes advantage of much of Ruby's 
dynamic nature.  Try it some time and see if you change your mind.

> 
> 
> 
>>I want fewer syntax restrictions, not more.
>>
> 
> 
> Too much freedom may turn into anarchy.    ;-)


You say that like it's a bad thing.

I would suggest that those who want a restrictive or controlling 
language have plenty of alternatives.

Arbitrary aesthetic controls are not a good goal.

James