From: Csaba Henk <csaba@..._for_avoiding_spam.org>
Date: 2005-03-25T21:14:47+09:00
Subject: Re: RCR 296: Destructive methods return self

On 2005-03-23, Daniel Amelang <daniel.amelang@gmail.com> wrote:
> From what I can tell, the basis for your alternative syntax (**) was
> that (*) was not consistent. 

You've misunderstood me. ** is not a proposed alternative syntax, it's
the direct consequence of *your* proposal.

Think a bit.

 *a = getSomeIntegers # say it gives you [1,4,5]
 ary.values_at *a     # so it's the same as ary.values_at 1, 4, 5

What does it become if you don't bother to store the result of the
multivalue call in a?

 ary.values_at **getSomeIntegers

My proposal was for *relaxing* the iterated stars. I suggested that in such 
cases 

 ary.values_at getSomeIntegers

should behave in the same way as the two-star version, so you don't have
to bother with starstar.

> Florian has already pointed out that it
> is, in fact, consistent (the astericks functions as an array
> 'collector' already), so I think we're back to the single * syntax,
> right?

That was fine from his part, I'm convinced about consistency. And among
all proposals which popped up in this thread I most like your one.

Csaba