From: Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>
Date: 2006-10-09T21:07:57+09:00
Subject: Re: [ruby-cvs:18323] ruby: * eval.c (splat_value): use "to_splat" instead of "to_ary" to

Hi,

In message "Re: [ruby-cvs:18323] ruby: * eval.c (splat_value): use "to_splat" instead of "to_ary" to"
    on Mon, 9 Oct 2006 11:28:48 +0900, Mathieu Bouchard <matju@artengine.ca> writes:

|> Every language grows in more recent version, as Ruby does, and PL/I did, 
|> until it grows too much to collapse into a black hole by its own 
|> gravity.  It's kind a like destiny.  Otherwise the language will die.
|
|And when it finally collapses into a black hole, it dies as well, unless 
|you think of the black hole as some kind of afterlife. (but I don't think 
|that trapping matter and emitting blackbody X-rays is your idea of an 
|afterlife)

Yes, languages are mortal.  I'd rather see Ruby being a black hole,
rather than having thermal death.

|> Implicit is better than explicit (under some condition), since 
|> succinctness is power.
|
|Almost all method calls in Ruby are not that implicit. I don't know why 
|you'd make a special case out of to_a if you don't want to_a to be the 
|default while not wanting to_ary to apply all of the time. But then I 
|don't understand why to_a is not good enough for you because I don't 
|understand what's too general about it and I don't know what's the 
|difference between an array, an array, an array, and an array.

nil, hash, IO, Socket have to_a.  I don't think they are not the
target of splat expansion, whereas range and enumerator are.

							matz.