From: Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>
Date: 2006-10-10T00:29:37+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 Tue, 10 Oct 2006 00:19:04 +0900, dblack@wobblini.net writes:

|> 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....

Hmm, you are a native English speaker, so your feeling must be
valuable input for name selection.  But still I don't think neither
"starred" or "to_starred" is better than "to_splat".  The term "splat"
is very specific to the operation, but "star" is not.  I feel negative
about "unarray" too.  What should we get from unarraying an array?

							matz.