From: Trans <transfire@...>
Date: 2005-03-24T09:59:50+09:00
Subject: Re: RCR 296: Destructive methods return self

Florian Gross wrote:
> Let's keep talk about this for a moment.
>
> We'll finally get keyword arguments in Rite and they're already in
Ruby
> 1.9 as well.
>
> But what about keyword return values? How would those look?
>
> I'm not sure how this would work out, but I guess we would need to
build
> it on the (a, b) = [1, 2] syntax.
>
> Perhaps (result: a, changed: b) = obj.strip! would work.
>
> I think the case of (result: result, changed: changed) would be quite

> common so perhaps it would be a good idea to introduce a short-cut.
> Maybe (:result, :changed) = rhs.
>
> What do you think about this? I guess I'm getting obscure here, but
this
> might be an alternative to more complex solutions...

I'm not sure I understand your short-cut. What variables would the
results end up in?


Giveing this more though... the parameters going in will be of the
form,

  ameth( arg1: value1, arg2: value2 )

Right? So how would one define keyword return values coming out?

  return ( arg1: value1, arg2: value2 )

Perhaps? Then how does one capture these values, which is what you're
asking. Yes? Is the return value a hash now as opposed to an array? Or
is it something different entirely?

Here is the example if based solely on order.

  r, c = obj.strip!

But this won't work if an actual hash is being returned. And as things
stand, if an actual hash is being returned something like this has to
be done:

  h = obj.strip!
  r, c = h[:result], h[:changed]

So how can these two become integrated and consistent?

T.