From: dblack@...
Date: 2006-10-19T20:36:28+09:00
Subject: Re: String not enumerable, what about IO? (was Re: Symbol < String in Ruby > 1.8)

Hi --

On Thu, 19 Oct 2006, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

> Hi,
>
> In message "Re: String not enumerable, what about IO? (was Re: Symbol < String in Ruby > 1.8)"
>    on Thu, 19 Oct 2006 20:16:54 +0900, dblack@wobblini.net writes:
>
> |There are two separate questions involved, though:
> |
> |   1. Should there be a method to enumerate over the lines without
> |      creating an intermediate array?
> |   2. Should that method be called "lines"?
> |
> |I would say yes to #1, and no to #2.
>
> The reason behind no to #2 is that readlines returns an array, right?
> Then, what if I change readlines to return Enumerator?

I still think the naming is very unexpected.  I know it's
old-fashioned and naive to expect "things" to be a collection of
things :-)  But I really do have that expectation.

Otherwise -- if lines is an enumerator, rather than some lines -- it
feels to me like Ruby is taking over too much.  It's as if I'm being
allowed to say "I want lines from this string", but Ruby knows better:
I don't *really* want lines, even if I think I do.

That kind of steering away from the semantics of the method names
makes me uncomfortable.  If I need an enumerator, I want the language
to give me a way to ask for one clearly; and if I ask for "things", I
want the things.


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