[#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: Eero Saynatkari <ruby-ml@...>
Date: 2006-10-10 17:16:57 UTC
List: ruby-core #9098
On 2006.10.10 23:57, dblack@wobblini.net wrote:
> Hi --
> 
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, James Edward Gray II wrote:
> 
> >On Oct 10, 2006, at 8:43 AM, 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 22:36:44 +0900, "Rick DeNatale" 
> >><rick.denatale@gmail.com> writes:
> >>
> >>If it's possible, I'd like to hear your feeling against the changes in
> >>detail.  Can you express?  Why don't you right?
> >
> >I believe I understand where Rick is coming from.
> >
> >He's saying that when we do a *whatever, we are actively asking that 
> >whatever be split into values.  Because we consciously make that choice, 
> >to_a (a general solution) is fine.  We understand that we are calling to_a 
> >and willingly accept the consequences.  If we want to divide up a string 
> >into arguments that way, that's our business not Ruby's business.
> >
> >At least, that's what I *think* he means.  Correct me if I'm wrong Rick.
> 
> I've been thinking about the whole thing, and I tend to agree.  I'm
> not sure why we need a whole star-related sub-system, including a
> method hook, independent of the existing array sub-system.  I think
> the star can be understood as syntactic sugar for to_a.

The problem is that * does not just create an Array--in fact, that
seems to be the less-used functionality. In most situations, #to_a
is the exact opposite of what is happening. If

  *5      # => [5]

Then #to_a is correct. This is what can be considered to happen in
method definitions and in the left-hand-side of assignments. What is
more, these are not controlled by the user: the only context where
the programmer can explicitly affect the result of * is this:

 *[1, 2]  # => 1, 2

(And variations thereof)

Here we are definitely NOT doing a #to_a but the exact opposite 
(whatever it is decreed to be called). 

I think this is what matz means--correct me if I am wrong :)

In This Thread