From: Nathan Broadbent <nathan.f77@...>
Date: 2012-11-14T04:44:35+09:00
Subject: [ruby-core:49315] [ruby-trunk - Feature #7341][Open] Enumerable#associate

--e89a8ff1c4e6b2046904ce65a583
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

>
> 1) The form you suggest would be redundant with `Enumerable#to_h`
>

I agree that 'Enumerable#to_h' would seem more appropriate than the
block-less version of 'associate'. To me, the 'associate' verb implies that
the programmer will provide some logic to determine how the elements will
be associated. So I also feel that invocation without a block should return
an enumerator.

However, if 'to_h' is rejected and 'associate' is all we have to work with,
then it would probably be more useful to make 'associate' 'multi-purpose'
in the way that is currently proposed.

--e89a8ff1c4e6b2046904ce65a583
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">1) The form you suggest would be redundant w=
ith `Enumerable#to_h`<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I agree that &#39;Enumerable#to_h&#39; wou=
ld seem more appropriate than the block-less version of &#39;associate&#39;=
. To me, the &#39;associate&#39; verb implies that the programmer will prov=
ide some logic to determine how the elements will be associated. So I also =
feel that invocation without a block should return an enumerator.<span></sp=
an></div>
<div><br></div><div>However, if &#39;to_h&#39; is rejected and &#39;associa=
te&#39; is all we have to work with, then it would probably be more useful =
to make &#39;associate&#39; &#39;multi-purpose&#39; in the way that is curr=
ently proposed.<span></span></div>


--e89a8ff1c4e6b2046904ce65a583--