[#8997] Re: [ruby-cvs:18323] ruby: * eval.c (splat_value): use "to_splat" instead of "to_ary" to — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...>

On Tue, 3 Oct 2006, matz wrote:

77 messages 2006/10/04
[#8998] Re: [ruby-cvs:18323] ruby: * eval.c (splat_value): use "to_splat" instead of "to_ary" to — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2006/10/04

Hi,

[#9029] Re: [ruby-cvs:18323] ruby: * eval.c (splat_value): use "to_splat" instead of "to_ary" to — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2006/10/08

On Wed, 4 Oct 2006, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#9030] Re: [ruby-cvs:18323] ruby: * eval.c (splat_value): use "to_splat" instead of "to_ary" to — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2006/10/08

Hi,

[#9034] Re: [ruby-cvs:18323] ruby: * eval.c (splat_value): use "to_splat" instead of "to_ary" to — Dave Burt <dave@...> 2006/10/09

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#9041] Re: [ruby-cvs:18323] ruby: * eval.c (splat_value): use "to_splat" instead of "to_ary" to — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2006/10/09

Hi,

[#9042] Re: [ruby-cvs:18323] ruby: * eval.c (splat_value): use "to_splat" instead of "to_ary" to — dblack@... 2006/10/09

Hi --

[#9043] Re: [ruby-cvs:18323] ruby: * eval.c (splat_value): use "to_splat" instead of "to_ary" to — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2006/10/09

Hi,

[#9044] Re: [ruby-cvs:18323] ruby: * eval.c (splat_value): use "to_splat" instead of "to_ary" to — dblack@... 2006/10/09

Hi --

[#9045] Re: [ruby-cvs:18323] ruby: * eval.c (splat_value): use "to_splat" instead of "to_ary" to — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2006/10/09

Hi,

[#9047] Re: [ruby-cvs:18323] ruby: * eval.c (splat_value): use "to_splat" instead of "to_ary" to — dblack@... 2006/10/09

Hi --

[#9050] Re: [ruby-cvs:18323] ruby: * eval.c (splat_value): use "to_splat" instead of "to_ary" to — James Edward Gray II <james@...> 2006/10/09

On Oct 9, 2006, at 10:19 AM, dblack@wobblini.net wrote:

[#9053] Re: [ruby-cvs:18323] ruby: * eval.c (splat_value): use "to_splat" instead of "to_ary" to — Eero Saynatkari <ruby-ml@...> 2006/10/09

On 2006.10.10 00:31, James Edward Gray II wrote:

[#9055] Re: [ruby-cvs:18323] ruby: * eval.c (splat_value): use "to_splat" instead of "to_ary" to — James Edward Gray II <james@...> 2006/10/09

On Oct 9, 2006, at 11:50 AM, Eero Saynatkari wrote:

[#9056] Re: [ruby-cvs:18323] ruby: * eval.c (splat_value): use "to_splat" instead of "to_ary" to — dblack@... 2006/10/09

Hi --

[#9054] Re: [ruby-cvs:18323] ruby: * eval.c (splat_value): use "to_splat" instead of "to_ary" to — dblack@... 2006/10/09

Hi --

[#9066] Re: [ruby-cvs:18323] ruby: * eval.c (splat_value): use "to_splat" instead of "to_ary" to — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2006/10/09

Hi,

[#9072] Re: [ruby-cvs:18323] ruby: * eval.c (splat_value): use "to_splat" instead of "to_ary" to — dblack@... 2006/10/10

Hi --

[#9083] Re: [ruby-cvs:18323] ruby: * eval.c (splat_value): use "to_splat" instead of "to_ary" to — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2006/10/10

Hi,

[#9119] What about 'splay'? — dblack@...

Hi --

37 messages 2006/10/11
[#9122] Re: What about 'splay'? — Eero Saynatkari <ruby-ml@...> 2006/10/11

On 2006.10.12 02:32, dblack@wobblini.net wrote:

[#9127] Re: What about 'splay'? — Sean Russell <ser@...> 2006/10/11

On Wednesday 11 October 2006 13:55, Eero Saynatkari wrote:

[#9188] Symbol < String in Ruby > 1.8 — dblack@...

Hi --

107 messages 2006/10/15
[#9192] Re: Symbol < String in Ruby > 1.8 — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2006/10/16

Hi

[#9212] Re: Symbol < String in Ruby > 1.8 — Charles Oliver Nutter <Charles.O.Nutter@...> 2006/10/17

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#9238] Re: Symbol < String in Ruby > 1.8 — Charles Oliver Nutter <Charles.O.Nutter@...> 2006/10/18

Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:

[#9244] Re: Symbol < String in Ruby > 1.8 — Sam Roberts <sroberts@...> 2006/10/18

On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 05:06:02AM +0900, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:

[#9255] Re: Symbol < String in Ruby > 1.8 — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2006/10/19

Hi,

[#9256] Re: Symbol < String in Ruby > 1.8 — Sam Roberts <sroberts@...> 2006/10/19

Quoting matz@ruby-lang.org, on Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 01:40:42PM +0900:

[#9190] Re: Symbol < String in Ruby > 1.8 — "Rick DeNatale" <rick.denatale@...> 2006/10/16

On 10/15/06, dblack@wobblini.net <dblack@wobblini.net> wrote:

[#9191] Re: Symbol < String in Ruby > 1.8 — dblack@... 2006/10/16

Hi --

[#9194] Re: Symbol < String in Ruby > 1.8 — "Rick DeNatale" <rick.denatale@...> 2006/10/16

On 10/15/06, dblack@wobblini.net <dblack@wobblini.net> wrote:

[#9196] Re: Symbol < String in Ruby > 1.8 — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2006/10/16

Hi,

[#9202] Re: Symbol < String in Ruby > 1.8 — "Rick DeNatale" <rick.denatale@...> 2006/10/16

On 10/16/06, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:

[#9203] Re: Symbol < String in Ruby > 1.8 — James Edward Gray II <james@...> 2006/10/16

On Oct 16, 2006, at 3:06 PM, Rick DeNatale wrote:

[#9205] String not enumerable, what about IO? (was Re: Symbol < String in Ruby > 1.8) — Sam Roberts <sroberts@...> 2006/10/16

On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 05:14:09AM +0900, James Edward Gray II wrote:

[#9218] Re: String not enumerable, what about IO? (was Re: Symbol < String in Ruby > 1.8) — "Rick DeNatale" <rick.denatale@...> 2006/10/17

On 10/16/06, Sam Roberts <sroberts@uniserve.com> wrote:

[#9220] Re: String not enumerable, what about IO? (was Re: Symbol < String in Ruby > 1.8) — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2006/10/17

Hi,

[#9225] Re: String not enumerable, what about IO? (was Re: Symbol < String in Ruby > 1.8) — dblack@... 2006/10/18

Hi --

[#9226] Re: String not enumerable, what about IO? (was Re: Symbol < String in Ruby > 1.8) — James Edward Gray II <james@...> 2006/10/18

On Oct 17, 2006, at 7:29 PM, dblack@wobblini.net wrote:

[#9230] Re: String not enumerable, what about IO? (was Re: Symbol < String in Ruby > 1.8) — dblack@... 2006/10/18

Hi --

[#9231] Re: String not enumerable, what about IO? (was Re: Symbol < String in Ruby > 1.8) — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net> 2006/10/18

On Oct 18, 2006, at 4:18 AM, dblack@wobblini.net wrote:

[#9232] Re: String not enumerable, what about IO? (was Re: Symbol < String in Ruby > 1.8) — "Nikolai Weibull" <now@...> 2006/10/18

On 10/18/06, Eric Hodel <drbrain@segment7.net> wrote:

[#9234] Re: String not enumerable, what about IO? (was Re: Symbol < String in Ruby > 1.8) — mathew <meta@...> 2006/10/18

On 10/18/06, Nikolai Weibull <now@bitwi.se> wrote:

[#9236] Re: String not enumerable, what about IO? (was Re: Symbol < String in Ruby > 1.8) — "Nikolai Weibull" <now@...> 2006/10/18

On 10/18/06, mathew <meta@pobox.com> wrote:

[#9237] Re: String not enumerable, what about IO? (was Re: Symbol < String in Ruby > 1.8) — Mauricio Fernandez <mfp@...> 2006/10/18

On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 04:24:24AM +0900, Nikolai Weibull wrote:

[#9240] Re: String not enumerable, what about IO? (was Re: Symbol < String in Ruby > 1.8) — "Nikolai Weibull" <now@...> 2006/10/18

On 10/18/06, Mauricio Fernandez <mfp@acm.org> wrote:

[#9242] Re: String not enumerable, what about IO? (was Re: Symbol < String in Ruby > 1.8) — dblack@... 2006/10/18

Hi --

[#9247] Re: String not enumerable, what about IO? (was Re: Symbol < String in Ruby > 1.8) — "Rick DeNatale" <rick.denatale@...> 2006/10/19

On 10/18/06, dblack@wobblini.net <dblack@wobblini.net> wrote:

[#9250] Re: String not enumerable, what about IO? (was Re: Symbol < String in Ruby > 1.8) — Jim Weirich <jim@...> 2006/10/19

Rick DeNatale wrote:

[#9261] Re: String not enumerable, what about IO? (was Re: Symbol < String in Ruby > 1.8) — dblack@... 2006/10/19

Hi --

[#9262] Re: String not enumerable, what about IO? (was Re: Symbol < String in Ruby > 1.8) — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2006/10/19

Hi,

[#9264] Re: String not enumerable, what about IO? (was Re: Symbol < String in Ruby > 1.8) — dblack@... 2006/10/19

Hi --

[#9267] Re: String not enumerable, what about IO? (was Re: Symbol < String in Ruby > 1.8) — "Nikolai Weibull" <now@...> 2006/10/19

On 10/19/06, dblack@wobblini.net <dblack@wobblini.net> wrote:

[#9277] Re: String not enumerable, what about IO? (was Re: Symbol < String in Ruby > 1.8) — dblack@... 2006/10/19

Hi --

[#9285] Re: String not enumerable, what about IO? (was Re: Symbol < String in Ruby > 1.8) — "Nikolai Weibull" <now@...> 2006/10/20

On 10/19/06, dblack@wobblini.net <dblack@wobblini.net> wrote:

[#9288] Re: String not enumerable, what about IO? (was Re: Symbol < String in Ruby > 1.8) — dblack@... 2006/10/20

Hi --

[#9289] Re: String not enumerable, what about IO? (was Re: Symbol < String in Ruby > 1.8) — Jim Weirich <jim@...> 2006/10/20

dblack@wobblini.net wrote:

[#9294] Re: String not enumerable, what about IO? (was Re: Symbol < String in Ruby > 1.8) — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2006/10/20

Hi,

[#9300] Re: String not enumerable, what about IO? (was Re: Symbol < String in Ruby > 1.8) — dblack@... 2006/10/20

Hi --

Re: [ruby-cvs:18323] ruby: * eval.c (splat_value): use "to_splat" instead of "to_ary" to

From: "Rick DeNatale" <rick.denatale@...>
Date: 2006-10-10 13:36:44 UTC
List: ruby-core #9085
On 10/10/06, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> 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 10:47:43 +0900, dblack@wobblini.net writes:

> |The possible problem with to_values is that it suggests that what was
> |there before the conversion was *not* values, which I think might be
> |misleading.  to_args still seems too specific to me -- for example, in
> |this:
> |
> |   [*0...10]
> |
> |there's nothing arg-related about what's happening to the range.
>
> It was *a value* before conversion.

Yes,  but the proposal is not to_value but to_values  which might be
subtle but is a crucial distinction.

> |I also have a question about the use of this method.  Do you think it
> |would always be defined in terms of the * itself?  In other words:
> |
> |   class C
> |     def initialize(a)
> |       @array = a
> |     end
> |     def to_values
> |       *a
> |     end
> |   end
> |
> |But then wouldn't it just return an array?  Or would the * still
> |un-array it?
> |
> |   c = C.new([1,2,3,4])
> |   Hash[*c]             # == Hash[1,2,3,4] ?
> |
> |But then... why have a separate definition?  I'm sure there's a reason
> |-- I'm just not yet seeing how one would use it.
>
> I am not sure I understand you here.  Here's little bit modified your
> example.
>
>    class C
>      def initialize(a)
>        @array = a
>      end
>      def to_values
>        @array
>      end
>    end
>
>    c = C.new([1,2,3,4])
>    Hash[*c]             # == Hash[1,2,3,4]
>
> Do you see any problem?

I'm not sure that I do.

You seem to be saying that some might find that that last line:

   Hash[*c]

produces {1 => 2, 3 =>4}

But to my mind this is being overprotective at the cost of being
restrictive.  Putting that * in the code indicates that the programmer
WANTS the conversion to be applied.

As I've said before, the changes being made in 1.9 in this area just
don't feel right to me, but that's just my opinion.

-- 
Rick DeNatale

My blog on Ruby
http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/

In This Thread