From: Bill Kelly <billk@...>
Date: 2006-10-11T01:22:34+09:00
Subject: Re: [ruby-cvs:18323] ruby: * eval.c (splat_value): use "to_splat" instead of "to_ary" to

From: <dblack@wobblini.net>
> 
> Am I the only one who thinks that "splat" is a goofy, babyish word,
> and while OK to throw around on mailing lists, really not expressive
> of anything technically specific?

I've started two replies on this general notion over the past two
days, but hadn't sent them. . . . Who knows, maybe this third attempt...

First, I'm not totally married to "to_splat", although I had no trouble
guessing what it meant.

But I've always enjoyed referring to "*" as splat notation, or the
splat operator, as in: the contents of this array will be splatted
into the argument list.

I know many of us find programming in ruby fun.  And since I find
the splatting of args to be a fun visual metaphor, it doesn't seem
to bother me that the term is not technically specific.  It's still
visual and visceral.

I'm not against looking for a *better* term than splat, but I
do wonder if it would be possible to committee-ize the fun out of
ruby.

And so if we're going to take a fun, metaphorical term, and replace
it with a dry technical term, I hope the value of the new term's
technical specificity really does outweigh the little splash of color
and fun that may have been lost from the language in the trade.


Just my 0.02 Zorkmids,

Bill