From: nobu.nokada@... Date: 2003-02-07T21:37:40+09:00 Subject: Re: class of $1, $2 in 1.8.0 Hi, At Fri, 7 Feb 2003 20:56:28 +0900, dblack@candle.superlink.net wrote: > Fri Dec 20 00:16:06 2002 Nobuyoshi Nakada > > * re.c (rb_reg_match_pre, rb_reg_match_post, match_to_a, > match_select): return instances of same class as the original > string. [ruby-dev:19119] > > which applies to the $1, $2... sub-matches. It caused scanf to blow > up, and while I can fix it with a bunch of String.new() calls, I'm > still left wondering what was wrong with having $1, $2... just be > String objects. Formerly, they were not thourough. Redefining very common names in different manner would often cause unexpected results. I guess other names are better than to_i and to_f. -- Nobu Nakada