> On 5 Mar 2017, at 19:53, Martin McClure <mar...@hand2mouse.com> wrote: > > On 03/05/2017 03:01 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: >> I also think that allowing concatenation on Symbols does not violate their >> immutability contract. >> >> As a thought experiment, what could be the problem with adding >> >> Symbol >> , arg >> ^ (self , arg) asSymbol >> >> ? >> > > Aside from the infinite recursion (I suspect you meant super rather than > self) :-) , I wouldn't have any problem with that.
Haha, I copied it from lower in the thread, but shame on me that I didn't see that right away ! >> (I have found the original issue raised annoying as well) >> >> >>> On 5 Mar 2017, at 11:35, Peter Uhnak <i.uh...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> I don't need (or want) to mutate the receiver. Actually I thought that >>> String is also immutable. >>> $, could just return a new symbol instance instead. Concating symbols is >>> quite practical for metaprogramming, as most things are named with symbols >>> and compare by identity... >>> > Somewhat unfortunately, imho, Smalltalk Strings are mutable. I've not seen > this feature used often, except by internal operations that could just as > well be using a CharacterBuffer or whatever would replace String as the > mutable thing if you made String immutable. Yes, this distinction, with a default for immutable ones, would be good. We got #beReadOnlyObject in Pharo, so I guess we can start experimenting. Especially literal strings should be read only. > Regards, > > -Martin
