From: dblack@...
Date: 2006-10-10T01:27:15+09:00
Subject: Re: [ruby-cvs:18323] ruby: * eval.c (splat_value): use "to_splat" instead of "to_ary" to

Hi --

On Tue, 10 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 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?

A list.


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