sigil

Very small type at the bottom of their ads. Despite what people think, you are not required to stick a trademark sigil right next to your mark.

When I last looked, a lot of the string operations worked with a specific pointer sigil[1].

I agree with thestinger, here:> uses and instead of &&, or instead of ||, list instead of [] and so on. Most people find it far easier to read and search for these than the sigil alternatives.

"[0]Okay, I don't know Ruby well enough to know if these are commonly used features, but the statement that there are no sigils is false.

Why couldn't they just pick a normal sigil that everyone already understands, like the dollar sign?

It's important for the sigil to look lightweight, as you tend to type it a lot, especially next to the reference sigil &.

It's because Ruby scopes sigil-less variables locally by default.

I'm pretty confused about this in particular, as I thought I understood the point of the different sigils pretty well, but the way the library is written makes me wonder.

> Re the dress example: true, but it's a broadly understood sigil for victim-blamingYou're missing the essential significance of the dress example.

It's broadly understood to be a sigil for victim-blaming precisely because it's totally disconnected from the actual nature of rape and won't actually reduce your risk of rape.

If I'm using managed boxes, and the methods take and return unique boxes, is it because I'm using the wrong sigil for the job or should I expect to be able to use managed strings?Is this just me misunderstanding the memory model or is this something that just hasn't been straightened our yet?