[ruby-core:23298] Re: [Feature #666](Rejected) Enumerable::to_hash

On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Michael Fellinger
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> Doesn't the new behaviour of Hash::[] solve these cases just as well?

Yes indeed it does, but

1) The new form of Hash[] has yet to be confirmed by Matz (see
http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/show/1385 ).

2) It's not as natural as #to_hash. Don't we usually use instance
methods to convert between types? If you look at conversion between
basic types, you can convert:
Numeric <=> String <=> Symbol
Hash => Array
All these using instance methods. The only arrow missing is from Array
back to Hash!


I'm not sure I understand the rationale behind Hash[] or Array[].
Their existence doesn't hurt but I don't think they are getting much
use. In rails' code, there are no use of Array[] and two of Hash[],
both of which building an array of key-value pairs, then flattening it
before calling Hash[]. They would thus also benefit from the new form
of Hash[] (if it is confirmed as a feature) or, more nicely and
naturally, of a new Array#to_hash. My opinion is that it's much better
to be consistent and have an instance method of Array to get a hash
than to promote the use of an unfamiliar and unpopular use of a class
method.

Thanks