From: William Djaja Tjokroaminata <billtj@...>
Date: 2002-01-26T02:12:06+09:00
Subject: Re: Serious Array Bug in Ruby 1.6.6?

It "does not work" because the purpose is to create an array of hashes and
not an array of a single hash.  Yes, there are many options in a language,
but which ones are the most useful?

Probably x = x is not useful.  Now, for a = Array.new (n, Hash.new), which
one is more useful, for it to create a single hash or multiple hashes?

I make a hypothesis that if we change the behavior of Array.new (using
Object#dup or clone), it will not break many existing codes, because for
people who wrote a = Array.new (n, 'a') it still works while I don't think
anybody has ever written a = Array.new (n, Hash.new) (except myself, of
course).  If anyone has found the usefulness of Array.new (n, Hash.new) or
Array.new (n, Array.new), please let me know.

Regards,

Bill
========================================================================
David Alan Black <dblack@candle.superlink.net> wrote:
> This is sort of a circular argument....  You've listed Array.new(2,
> Hash.new) as one of the options for creating an array of two different
> hashes, and then declared that the construct "does not work".  But
> actually it does work precisely as documented.  I know that your point
> is that you wish it behaved differently, but that's different from not
> working :-)

> I've never used it, but then again I don't think every possible
> statement based on a language's semantics has to have a purpose that's
> defineable in advance.  You could put:

>   x = x

> somewhere in a program, and it wouldn't serve any purpose, but that
> doesn't mean that the language's support for assignment to variables
> should be reconsidered.  (Sort of a reductio ad absurdum, I admit, but
> still I think the principle might apply.)