From: Ibraheem Umaru-Mohammed <iumarumohammed@...>
Date: 2004-12-10T07:51:51+09:00
Subject: Re: String#split behaves odd [Array#delete confusion]

+++ Gavin Sinclair [ruby-talk] [10/12/04 06:43 +0900]:
[...]
> Array#compact
> 
> It doesn't currently take a parameter, so allow it to take one.  FWIW
> I think Array#delete should be deprecated, and Array#compact extended
> in this fashion.  I don't see a good rationale for the return value of
> Array#delete, and when a method is called #delete there is always
> confusion about whether it's destructive.
> 
> Ruby spoils us so much that when you have to look something up in the
> docs a few times you feel cheated :)
> 
[...]

I agree. Something doesn't seem right with Array#delete. When I first
encountered it, I expected only the first object to be removed, not _all_ of
them. And because the deletion was greedy, I thought they'd be an easy way to
specify just how many of those objects you wanted removed. There didn't seem
to be, so I submitted RCR285, along with some suggestions for
Array#delete_at.

I also expected Array#delete to give back a new array with the deleted
objects removed, as my instincts led me to believe there'd be an
Array#delete!. But again, no.

I don't however, agree that Array#delete should be deprecated, simply because
I believe a new ruby programmer is more likely to expect a 'delete' rather
than a 'compact' to do what they want to do. Although that's probably not
reason enough, I suspect they'd check for 'remove' or 'delete' before they
came across 'compact' 

	    --ibz.

--