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

Hi --

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:

> [e-mail] wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
>>> to_splattable (perhaps most accurate; I tend to like to_splat also)
>> 
>> 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?  (The most accurate would be
>> "to_splatted", but hopefully the whole thing can be avoided.)  It
>> would be like having File.slurp instead of File.read.
>
> I like the word; it's very descriptive of slamming an array against a hard 
> surface...the contents "splat" out into individual elements. If you want 
> something more technically descriptive, "expand" is your word, or perhaps 
> "break_into_consitutent_pieces". I like splat.
>
> And I figured to_splattable is more accurate because it hasn't been splatted 
> yet; the implementation of to_splattable returns an array that's ready to be 
> splatted. You could certainly call x = y.to_splattable; z = [*y]; because y 
> is a splattable, not a splatted.

I see what you mean.  I think there's been ambiguity in some of the
naming suggestions, though; for instance, to_values and to_args, both
of which suggest the already-finished process.  In fact that's
probably what was tripping me up yesterday about the relation between
what's returned by this method and the star:

   x.to_values    # an array
   *x.to_values   # the unarrayed version

which means that to_values is not unarrayed until it hits the star.

Oh, I don't know.  to_a is starting to look really good :-)


David

-- 
                   David A. Black | [e-mail]
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