From: dblack@...
Date: 2006-10-10T00:19:04+09:00
Subject: Re: [ruby-cvs:18323] ruby: * eval.c (splat_value): use "to_splat" instead of "to_ary" to

Hi --

On Mon, 9 Oct 2006, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

> 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 23:06:57 +0900, dblack@wobblini.net writes:
>
> |> Um.  For "to_" + verb, we already have "to_open".  I am open for the
> |> better name proposal, as always.
> |
> |I can't find to_open (is it in an extension?) but I don't think
> |to_verb is good.  At least open is also an adjective... but even if
> |there's one to_verb, I really strongly recommend against having more.
> |It just sounds wrong, and definitely has the "added to the language
> |later" feel.
>
> It's only in 1.9.
>
> |I gather you don't like "unarray" :-)  I wish * were available.
> |"star" or "starred", maybe?  Does it have to be to_something?
>
> You mean "to_star"?  I like the "to_" name for internal conversion
> methods.

I actually meant just "starred", without the to_.  I'm not sure the
to_ makes sense.  With the conversions (to_something), the "something"
is always (?) a recognizable, core class: to_i, to_s, to_f, etc.  But
the star is the operation, not the result.  The object isn't really
being converted to a particular thing that can be named or labelled.

to_starred is better than to_splat; it reads much better.  But to_
still doesn't feel like the right fit for this.  I'll keep
brainstorming....


David

-- 
                   David A. Black | dblack@wobblini.net
Author of "Ruby for Rails"   [1] | Ruby/Rails training & consultancy [3]
DABlog (DAB's Weblog)        [2] | Co-director, Ruby Central, Inc.   [4]
[1] http://www.manning.com/black | [3] http://www.rubypowerandlight.com
[2] http://dablog.rubypal.com    | [4] http://www.rubycentral.org