From: Raul Parolari <raulparolari@...>
Date: 2009-12-03T02:53:35+09:00
Subject: Re: Splat array with 1 value in Ruby 1.9 vs Ruby 1.8

Robert Klemme wrote:
> 2009/12/1 Raul Parolari <raulparolari@gmail.com>:
>> (multiple splats). But the concept is still the same (in this case, as
>> Matz/Flanagan's book says "the array elements replace the array in the
>> original rvalue"). That's the reason that I think the behavior of
>> � � �a = *[ 3 ] � �# => a = [ 3 ]
>> is a bug; else, it would go against the definition just given (just
>> because the array has 1 element). Just my opinion, of course.
> 
> If you believe you have found a bug, please file it so it can be taken 
> care of.
> http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/
> 
>> In any case, thanks again for the elegant solution to my code generation
> 
> You're welcome!
> 
> Kind regards
> 
> robert

Thanks for the suggestion; I just reported (what I believe to be) the 
bug, with the quote from Matz's book

Raul Parolari
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.