From: "James T. Vradelis" <jvradelis@...>
Date: 2001-02-19T23:10:02+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:11098] Re: Summary: RCR #U002 - proper new name for indexes



Aleksi Niemel wrote:

> > On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> >
> > > So candidates are:
> > >
> > >   (a) Hash#values, Array#values
> > >   (b) Hash#values_for, Array#values_for
> > >   (c) Hash#values_for, Array#values_at
> > >   (d) Hash#at, Array#at
> > >   (e) Hash#values, Array#elements
> > >   (f) Hash#subset, Array#subset
> > >   (g) Hash#selections, Array#selections
> > >   (h) Hash#collect_indexes, Array#collect_indexes
> > >
> > > Did I miss any propsal from you guys?
> >
>
> David Alan Black added:
>
> >    (i) Hash#values_for, Array#elements_at
>
> My vote(s) go for choice i, or if in the end game it's considered too long,
> I'd revert to
>
>      (j) Hash#values,     Array#elements
>
>         - Aleksi

I'd like to see:

    (k)  Hash#[],  Array#[]

as in:

    myHash = {'one' => 1, 'two' => 2, 'three' => 3}

    myHash['one','two','three']    ->  [1,2,3]

and

    myArray = [1,2,3,4,5]
    myArray[4,2,3]                     ->  [5,3,4]

I realize that this latter conflicts with:

    Array#[<beginning index>, <number of elements>]

but that functionality is duplicated by:

    Array#[<beginning index>..<beginning index + number of elements - 1>]

anyway.