From: Benoit Daloze <eregontp@...>
Date: 2010-04-15T04:10:35+09:00
Subject: [ruby-core:29520] Re: [Feature #2152] Split functionality of 	Float#inspect and Float#to_s

--001636417499996b4a0484371f11
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

>
> The option previously proposed is
>
> Float#to_s : human
> Float#inspect : verbose
>
> Another option:
>
> Float#to_s : verbose
> Float#inspect : verbose
> Float#to_hs : human (or to_ps or what not, for pretty string--not sure
> if there is a convention for that name or not)
>
> Any feedbacks or preferences there?  I'd probably be ok either way.
> -rp
>
> I think a new name would not be so welcomed (and confusing).

Why to have two methods (to_s and inspect) doing the same thing?
They are not supposed to be aliased,
this is the case in many objects (except the ones having a unique perfect
representation).
So let's change one !

I think it's time to decide.
And I think the initial proposition is the relevant one (name convention,
backward compatibility, useful, ...).

Who (else) is disagreeing to this feature ?
... and who is agreeing ?

--001636417499996b4a0484371f11
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margi=
n: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-le=
ft: 1ex;">The option previously proposed is<br>
<br>
Float#to_s : human<br>
Float#inspect : verbose<br>
<br>
Another option:<br>
<br>
Float#to_s : verbose<br>
Float#inspect : verbose<br>
Float#to_hs : human (or to_ps or what not, for pretty string--not sure<br>
if there is a convention for that name or not)<br>
<br>
Any feedbacks or preferences there? =A0I&#39;d probably be ok either way.<b=
r>
<font color=3D"#888888">-rp<br>
<br>
</font></blockquote></div>I think a new name would not be so welcomed (and =
confusing).<br><br>Why to have two methods (to_s and inspect) doing the sam=
e thing?<br>They are not supposed to be aliased,<br>this is the case in man=
y objects (except the ones having a unique perfect representation).<br>
So let&#39;s change one !<br><br>I think it&#39;s time to decide.<br>And I =
think the initial proposition is the relevant one (name convention, backwar=
d compatibility, useful, ...).<br><br>Who (else) is disagreeing to this fea=
ture ?<br>
... and who is agreeing ?<br>

--001636417499996b4a0484371f11--