From: Todd Benson <caduceass@...>
Date: 2008-12-13T07:43:16+09:00
Subject: Re: parallel method return value

On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 4:12 PM, Louis-Philippe <default@spiralix.org> wrote:
>> 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

Perhaps bring your interests to the ruby core list.  I like it the way
it is.  Ruby's parser assumes you require a single object unless the
left hand side is specified otherwise.  I see no weirdness about this.

Todd