From: Louis-Philippe <default@...>
Date: 2008-12-13T07:12:13+09:00
Subject: Re: parallel method return value

------=_Part_17829_28207541.1229120358837
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

> Now, you want a to be 1, but Ruby would need the power to read minds to
> accommodate that. See, because if I do the same, I want a to be [1, 2, 3].
> How is foo supposed to figure that out? Or why should your want be more/less
> preferable than my want?
>

You're totally right Matthew, I was twisted into thinking assignment would
do it for one lvalue with multiple rvalues...
Its probably a crazy idea, and who am I to have idea about language design
without any means to implement them...
but anyway, here's my thought (its this one that got me twisted).
Since the splat operator does nothing when preceding a rvalue of only one
array, like in:

a = *[1,2,3]  #  => a = [1,2,3]
a = [1,2,3]   #  => a = [1,2,3]

a,b = *[1,2,3]   # => a = 1, b = 2
a,b = [1,2,3]    # => a = 1, b = 2

It would be in line with its normal use, to make all array items absolutely
separate,
allowing for the impossible:  a = *[1,2,3]  # => a = 1   (I know, this is
not working code, but thats how my head go previously twisted).
... I was just thinking out loud, I believe there is certainly a really good
logic to explain why this fabulous language doesn't already implement this
feature, it surely won't stop me in my unconditional ruby love ;)

L-P

------=_Part_17829_28207541.1229120358837--