From: Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...>
Date: 2004-08-26T23:43:54+09:00
Subject: Re: Pretty Printing more widely

On Thursday, August 26, 2004, 9:44:29 PM, Hugh wrote:

> My patch would allow

>      pp greetings
>      fp.pp greetings

> to reflect the orthogonality of the other methods.
> Whilst it was trivial for me to fix I had to delve into pp.rb to
> find out that this was possible. 
> IO doesn't have the p method, but since pp is more readable, I
> consider it more useful, and thus a stronger candidate for inclusion
> in IO than p would be.

I agree in spirit, but let me offer an alternative.  #pp is
conceptually similar to #p.  #p doesn't exist in IO-like classes
because it's simply a shortcut for 'puts X.inspect'.  To keep the
analogy between #p and #pp, why can't #pp be a shortcut for "puts
X.something"?

In 'extensions', I define Object#pp_s.  It's not a great name, but
it's a very handy thing to be able to access.  IMO it should be
standard (with a different name).

Cheers,
Gavin