Re: VERY simple question about "?"

Robert Klemme wrote:
On 04.01.2009 14:48, Tom Cloyd wrote:
I guess what confused me is that I bring to Ruby the notion that if a
symbol causes something to happen, as "?" clearly does in my example
(it produces the integer code for a character),

In this case nothing "happens" (see below). It is just another
syntactical way to express an integer constant.

its' an operator or method. I'm not unfamiliar with linguistics. I
don't see the equivalence between a string delimiter, or a character
that signals the beginning of a symbol, and a symbol that is actually
productive of something. Makes no sense to me at all, in fact. Maybe
I'm failing to grasp some transformative concept which changes how
things work in the Ruby world.

Seeing operators as methods makes some real sense, on the other hand.
"=" produces something out of what it's given. It doesn't just change
meaning, which is all that happens with quotes or ":". That's the
distinction I'm seeing, and it seems valid.

I am not sure what you mean by "change meaning". Can you elaborate?
Meaning, in linguistics as I understand it, is inherent, contextural, or
both. "a" is inherently a character in the basic Roman alphabet used by
many European languages. As a representation of a sound, its meaning
changes depending upon context. Consider "pat" and "pate". Adding the
suffix "e" to the consonant+vowel+consonant construction changes the
sound of the "a". In Ruby, customer_count (a variable) and
"customer_count" (a string) don't mean the same thing, because the
latter has a prefix and suffix of the " symbol. Contextural meaning
production is occurring. Ditto for the use of ":" in symbols. The """
and the ":" are context indicators, but produce nothing. Not so for "+"
in "a+b" or, I think "?a". Something is emitted, here. That goes well
beyond mere contextual meaning production, which is also occurring, to
be sure. I hope I'm being clear enough here.

Btw, note that there are two types of "=":

1. variable assignment as in "a = 123",

2. method call that mimics variable assignment as in "a.foo = 456".

Both evaluate always to the right hand side - but this is about the
only commonality. Semantics of type 1 is fixed while you are free to
implement type 2 in any way you like, e.g.

irb(main):005:0> a = Object.new
=> #<Object:0x7ff79980>
irb(main):006:0> def a.foo=(x) puts "bah!" end
=> nil
irb(main):007:0> a.foo = 456
bah!
=> 456
irb(main):008:0>
Thanks! That's fun, and interesting.

I'll keep thinking about it.

Basically "?a" is just another textual representation for the integer
97 which happens to be the ASCII code of character "a". It differs
from string delimiters because the expression "foo" is actually a
String constructor - it will create a new String object whenever it is
executed:

irb(main):003:0> 3.times { x = "foo"; puts x, x.object_id }
A "textural representation" that PRODUCES something? Doesn't make sense
to me. Representations simply represent. They "stand for" something
else, and do no more.

Now, I can define method X, and then say that X "stands for" the method
specification. That's true, from the compiler's point of view, among
other things. But to say no more is misleading. "X" can be called, at
which point it ACTS. "Tom" - my name can also be called, but when one
does so IT doesn't spring into action at all. I might, but IT cannot.

There is, I therefore assert, a fundamental difference here, and I think
you're seeing that two different things have the same feature and
concluding from that that they are the same sort of thing. That argument
is obviously flawed. "It's incomplete, as my "Tom" demonstrations shows.
You say "Basically "?a" is just another textual representation for..." -
I'd agree, except for that "just". That single word makes the statement
incorrect, to my mind, and also reveals the problem I'm addressing.
foo
1073491940
foo
1073492040
foo
1073491880
=> 3
irb(main):004:0>

[...]

Thanks for your thoughts. I appreciate your sharing them.

t.

--

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tom Cloyd, MS MA, LMHC - Private practice Psychotherapist
Bellingham, Washington, U.S.A: (360) 920-1226
<< tc@xxxxxxxxxxxx >> (email)
<< TomCloyd.com >> (website)
<< sleightmind.wordpress.com >> (mental health weblog)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: MV Keys
    ... and you can sort lists of characters ... which gives the type semantic meaning. ... itself---and I can likewise use a string as an array of characters. ... individual character values don't belong to ...
    (comp.databases.theory)
  • Re: MV Keys
    ... I think that a string is a scalar if ALL of the ... which gives the type semantic meaning. ... character values aren't directly augmented by the attribute name, ...
    (comp.databases.theory)
  • Re: Binary-safe?
    ... Because the function imposes some meaning on specific bytes, ... | parameter was an empty string. ... yes...if that were what php were doing behind the scenes with strings. ... they both, however, are interpreted one character at a time. ...
    (alt.php)
  • Re: [PHP] (another) regex difficulty
    ... this is untested but using the assertion, meaning that the ... string '\' doesn't appear before the character, ...
    (php.general)
  • [TOMOYO #15 3/8] Common functions for TOMOYO Linux.
    ... This file contains common functions (e.g. policy I/O, pattern matching). ... Since TOMOYO Linux is a name based access control, ... TOMOYO Linux's string manipulation functions make reviewers feel crazy, ... the Linux kernel accepts all characters but NUL character ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
Loading