From: dblack@... Date: 2006-10-15T21:11:49+09:00 Subject: Re: What about 'splay'? Hi -- On Sun, 15 Oct 2006, Nikolai Weibull wrote: > On 10/11/06, Nikolai Weibull wrote: > >> On 10/11/06, dblack@wobblini.net wrote: > >> > With regard to the splat/unarray/values discussion: > >> Why not #destructure[?] > > Did this mail get through? I thought #destructure was a rather good > suggestion. Am I missing something? There's still the problem (which affects 'unarray' too) that the method itself is going to return an array, which means it should really be called "to_array_that_star_will_operate_on", or something like that. The method itself doesn't destructure the structure. In the end, I don't think the idea of a separate, named array-conversion method just for * really fits in with either the way Ruby handles conversion methods, or the way Ruby handles unary operator definitions. To me, that's a sign that it's probably not a good fit at all, and it probably be better to use to_a[ry] or @*. 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