I see your point, but I disagree.
If Ruby behaved identically to C, then the
surprise for C programmers would be precisely
But when you use C for string processing (especially
when you’ve used something more powerful), you find
yourself saying: “There should be some easy way to
In the first place, POLS is a Matz-centric phenomenon
(as he has admitted). The more you think like Matz,
the better you will understand Ruby.
Secondly, POLS should be a meta-linguistic issue IMO –
not “how does this work in my favorite language?” but
"how should this work in an ideal universe?"
And I think Strings are not really Arrays. There are
some isomorphisms there, since they are both “ordered
collections of entities.”
But a string is a highly specialized thing. For one
thing, each item has to be a character. No other
Ruby array is limited in the kind of data it can
contain; such an idea seems very unRubylike to me.
No, I have to say that in this respect as in others,
Ruby corrected C’s mistake. And it was not really
and truly a mistake in C; C is close to assembly
language, and is not as high level as Ruby. There
was not really another way to think of strings
except as arrays. But we’re past that now.
----- Original Message -----
From: “Michael Campbell” email@example.com
To: “ruby-talk ML” firstname.lastname@example.org
Sent: Friday, July 05, 2002 11:07 AM
Subject: Re: is there a better string.each?
This is something which bites everybody, I think, at some point.
Not to be a pedant, but this seems like a huge breakage of the POLS,
if it bites everyone, no? =)