From: Trans <transfire@...>
Date: 2005-11-24T02:22:25+09:00
Subject: Re: String#to_rx ?


Austin Ziegler wrote:
> I disagree that either #to_re or #to_rx would be a good name for this
> construct. I think that it would be better to have a method on Regexp
> itself (a new, alternative constructor) that does this. Maybe:
>
> Regexp.compile_escaped(str)

The problem here is largely one of brevity. Who wants to type all that
when #to_re will do?

> I don't think I've actually ever seen Regexp.compile used, so maybe it
> can be repurposed in 1.9 to do this.
>
> FWIW, I don't tend to use the construct that Alex did -- I tend to
> either anchor my strings or insert them in the middle of a larger
> regexp, which is why I don't particularly think that this is a method
> that belongs on String.

> If it's to be on String, though, it should probably be on a few others
> as well (Fixnum) and it should be explicit: #to_regexp.

#to_regexp would imply that the object was some type of Regexp already.
#to_re or #to_rx clearly indicate it is a conversion. It's a pretty
innocent method and I don't think it is too much trouble to have even
if it's not the most useful method in the world.

I think even more usful though would just be a method on String that
does the Regexp escaping. I had been using my own small Kernel method
#resc(str) for this, but now I see it would be much more useful as a
String method:

  /^#{foo.resc}/ =~ bar

All things being the same, I'll put that in the next verison of Facets.

T.