From: "Berger, Daniel" <Daniel.Berger@...>
Date: 2005-07-19T01:30:49+09:00
Subject: Re: ruby-dev summary 26385-26467



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ryan Leavengood [mailto:mrcode@netrox.net] 
> Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 9:58 AM
> To: ruby-talk ML
> Subject: Re: ruby-dev summary 26385-26467
> 
> 
> Berger, Daniel said:
> >
> > What about simply altering String#to_a?
> >
> > String#to_a(bytes=false)
> >    Returns the string as an array of characters, or bytes if the 
> > +bytes+ argument is true.
> 
> I *strongly* dislike parameterizing methods like this. If you 
> are going to fundamentally alter the behavior of a method, 
> just make a new method. That way the new behavior is explicit.
> 
> If I read this code:
> 
> "str".to_a(true)
> 
> I will probably have to read the documentation for to_a to 
> figure out what the true means. Whereas this:
> 
> "str".to_bytes # Or whatever it is called
> 
> is essentially self-documenting.

Generally speaking I agree with you, but I also try to weigh that
consideration against API bloat.  And, since the default (false) is
probably what most people would use most of the time, it's a bullet I'd
be willing to bite.  However, all of this probably academic, as you
mention below.

> > I've never really liked the current implementation, where 
> "foo".to_a 
> > merely becomes ["foo"] - it just isn't useful usually.  
> However, I'm 
> > also aware that modifying String#to_a could cause major 
> breakage for 
> > many current packages (mine included).  Is it worth it?  
> I'll let Matz 
> > decide.
> 
> The usefulness of the current String#to_a is certainly 
> debateable, but changing it is definitely too big of a change 
> to be viable.
> 
> Ryan

Yes, probably.  Plus, Matz tends to dissuade folks from thinking of
strings as an array of characters, even though we're constantly breaking
down strings into arrays of characters. ;)

Well, there's always Sydney. :)

Regards,

Dan