[ruby-talk:02791] Re: Array.pop and documentation [was: Append alias for Array.append?]

Hi,

Aleksi writes:

# Conrad,
# >    slice_low
# >    slice_low(n)
# >    slice_high
# >    slice_high(n)
# >    slice(n,m)
# >where low and high refer to the end of the array with lowest and highest
# >array index,
#
# I don't know about 'low' and 'high' (maybe start and end, or bottom and
top
# or,...) but the idea sounds ok.

I think horizontal/vertical-orientation-independent names would be best, so
I like your recommendation of "start" and "end" best for slice/splice
method names, especially since "start" and "end" still  have a pretty
obvious semi-intuitive association with low and high
array/list/stack/vector indices.

# >it would still have to wait for Ruby 3000
#
# Why?

The main reason was the preference to have everyone writing the same
language, as it were. However, where there is an improvement in overall
clarity, uniformity, simplicity, ease of remembering, and so on (as is
hopefully the case here) versus merely adding otherwise redundant aliases
to cater to Python/Perl/Whatever converts, then it may be better to make
the addition now after all. I was also thinking in terms of method name
replacement, not in terms of method name addition--but now that I think
about it, addition now is probably preferable to waiting (perhaps forever)
for replacement later.

# First, I think we can implement (at least for these) 'include Ruby3000'.

Very interesting idea. I like it.

# And then I think we can just divide the proposed version number by about
# 1764.7055 and target these changes to 1.7 and stable release 1.8. Before
# that we could note at the release at 1.6 that all these things (and many
# more) might change in the future.

Ah, yes, of course. Why didn't I think of that? I had only thought of
1764.7049, which didn't quite work. :-)

# The people who want to stick with the old code, not change a line, can do
# so. They just stick with the old interpreters too. If they want to
# incorporate the patches from newer versions, they're able to do that
through
# - oh, what a beautiful world this is - Open Source.

OK, seems reasonable enough to me.

Conrad Schneiker
(This note is unofficial and subject to improvement without notice.)