From: dblack@...
Date: 2006-10-21T05:08:39+09:00
Subject: Re: String not enumerable, what about IO? (was Re: Symbol < String in Ruby > 1.8)

Hi --

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

> Hi,
>
> In message "Re: String not enumerable, what about IO? (was Re: Symbol < String in Ruby > 1.8)"
>    on Sat, 21 Oct 2006 01:11:36 +0900, dblack@wobblini.net writes:
>
> |> I think he assumes a "thins" should be more array-like than an
> |> enumerator.  Understandable.  I have a vague plan to create something
> |> more array-like (but lazy like generators) and make Enumerable#map
> |> etc. to return "that something".  It would have (almost) all the
> |> methods in Array.  If String#line would give us that something, David
> |
> |(Do you mean #lines?)
>
> Yes.
>
> |> would not complain, I guess.
> |
> |Did you see Austin's by_* methods?
> |
> |   string.lines   # an array
> |   string.by_lines { }   # enumeration (no intermediate array)
> |   string.by_lines       # enumerator (or your "something"?)
> |
> |I really like that way of breaking it out.
>
> Hmm, you think that "by_" means THAT much.

It seems like a good way of namespace-splitting, so that arrays (my
naive "collections" :-) don't have to compete with enumerators or
enumerator-like entities.

> |How's Denver? :-)
>
> Fine.  It's warmer than I was afraid.

Cool.  I mean, warm.  You know :-)


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