From: Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <rr.rosas@...>
Date: 2011-01-20T09:14:57+09:00
Subject: [ruby-core:34631] Re: [Ruby 1.9-Feature#4264] General type coercion protocol for Ruby

  Em 19-01-2011 19:53, Charles Oliver Nutter escreveu:
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 5:54 AM, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas
> <rr.rosas@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> I like the cast_to/cast_from names and I guess it avoids conflict with most
>> libraries.
> They're not bad, but casting to me means something altogether
> different: treating a an object as a different type, while still
> referencing the same object.
>
> I don't know what "cast" means generally in language design/type
> theory, but it seems wrong for what's happening here. In our case,
> we're asking the object to convert itself to a specific type...not
> casting it to a type it already implements.
>
> Perhaps convert_to and convert_from would be more in line with what's happening?
>
> - Charlie

convert_to/from is ok to me too. Does someone else object this name?

Rodrigo