From: Rafael Crivellari Saliba Schouery <schouery@...>
Date: 2009-04-15T21:56:37+09:00
Subject: [ruby-core:23214] Re: [Bug #1367] flatten(0) is not consistent with 	flatten(), flatten(1), etc.

--001636163d193cb3150467977a3e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I thought about that too.
I was think about other functions. sort, of course, is going to give you a
new array,
but what about functions that already knows that is not going to do
anything, like
[].reverse ?
Ruby gives you a new array, so I think this is really a bug. I want to make
a patch
for it soon, but I don't know when I will be able to.
Bye!

Rafael Schouery
VidaGeek.net


On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 7:11 AM, Paul Lewis <redmine@ruby-lang.org> wrote:

> Issue #1367 has been updated by Paul Lewis.
>
>
> As a pro-fix argument consider what happens when the code using flatten has
> a dynamic depth value.  So rather than:
>
> x = a.flatten(0)
>
> It's something like:
>
> x = a.flatten(depth)
>
> To ensure that this code behaviour predictably (without this fixed) it
> becomes necessary to treat 0 as a special case:
>
> depth = ???
> x = (depth != 0 ? a.flatten() : a.clone())
>
> As it works at the moment I think it violates the principle of least
> surprise.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_surprise
> ----------------------------------------
> http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/show/1367
>
> ----------------------------------------
> http://redmine.ruby-lang.org
>
>

--001636163d193cb3150467977a3e
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I thought about that too.<br>I was think about other functions. sort, of co=
urse, is going to give you a new array,<br>but what about functions that al=
ready knows that is not going to do anything, like<br>[].reverse ?<br>Ruby =
gives you a new array, so I think this is really a bug. I want to make a pa=
tch<br>

for it soon, but I don&#39;t know when I will be able to.<br>Bye!<br><br cl=
ear=3D"all">Rafael Schouery<br>VidaGeek.net<br>
<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 7:11 AM, Paul Le=
wis <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:redmine@ruby-lang.org">redmine@=
ruby-lang.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" st=
yle=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex=
; padding-left: 1ex;">

Issue #1367 has been updated by Paul Lewis.<br>
<br>
<br>
As a pro-fix argument consider what happens when the code using flatten has=
 a dynamic depth value. =A0So rather than:<br>
<br>
x =3D a.flatten(0)<br>
<br>
It&#39;s something like:<br>
<br>
x =3D a.flatten(depth)<br>
<br>
To ensure that this code behaviour predictably (without this fixed) it beco=
mes necessary to treat 0 as a special case:<br>
<br>
depth =3D ???<br>
x =3D (depth !=3D 0 ? a.flatten() : a.clone())<br>
<br>
As it works at the moment I think it violates the principle of least surpri=
se.<br>
<a href=3D"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_surprise" target=
=3D"_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_surprise</a><br=
>
----------------------------------------<br>
<div class=3D"im"><a href=3D"http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/show/1367"=
 target=3D"_blank">http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/show/1367</a><br>
<br>
</div>----------------------------------------<br>
<div><div></div><div class=3D"h5"><a href=3D"http://redmine.ruby-lang.org" =
target=3D"_blank">http://redmine.ruby-lang.org</a><br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>

--001636163d193cb3150467977a3e--