From: Trans <transfire@...>
Date: 2005-03-24T12:44:51+09:00
Subject: Re: RCR 296: Destructive methods return self

Florian Gross wrote:

> result and changed. It assigns the keyword return value with that
name
> to the variable with that name. It might be very rarely needed,
though.

Ah, Okay. That makes sense. Though you are right it does look a bit
odd, which is why I wasn't sure what you intended. I think as you said
that might be a little too obscure.

> I think the uncompressed syntax would be more useful.

I agree.

> >   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?
>
> That looks nice. I think it would return a Hash.

Okay, nice. That keeps things straight forward --no special type of
return object involved.

> My suggestion for capturing them is to introduce a new variable
> assignment syntax:
>
> (x: var1, y: var2) = {x: 1, y: 2}
> var1 # => 1
> var2 # => 2
>
> This might look odd at first, but I think it makes some kind of
sense...

Yes, it does make sense. But also true to it seems a bit odd at first.

I wonder, since this can already be done, as Matt pointed out:

  h = {x: 1, y: 2}
  var1, var2 = *h.values_at(:x, :y)

Could the following simple notation ultimately be workable?

  var1, var2 = h[:x,:y]

T.