From: Robert Klemme <shortcutter@...>
Date: 2010-04-04T19:10:07+09:00
Subject: Re: combined ranges...

On 04/03/2010 05:47 PM, Colin Bartlett wrote:

> I also like Robert Klemme's idea of having a level parameter,
> so if Robert is agreeable - and from his Ruby-talk posts he seems to be
> a very agreeable person! - maybe include levels, maybe renamed depth?
> (I've thought of using level in a more general Find module, and
> eventually decided depth was a better word for the concept. I can't
> remember why, but I'm sure there must have been very good reasons!)

Thanks!  I think you're right: "depth" is a better name than "level". 
It's probably because "depth" hints at "descending into the collection" 
while "level" rather sounds like "ascending".

> A question: should the depth/levels test be levels > 1 or > 0?
> Using [ 2..2 ] and "levels > 1":
>   levels param: 0 #=> 2..2;   1 #=> 2..2;   2 #=> 2;
> Using [ 2..2 ] and "levels > 0":
>   levels param: 0 #=> 2..2;   1 #=> 2;      2 #=> 2;
> It seems (maybe?) more logical to have depth/levels arguments:
>   0 means don't do any recursive expansion of each;
>   1 means do some recursive expansion of each;

It's probably a matter of taste.  I used "levels = 1" to indicate that 
we step down one level (i.e. into the collection) - that would be the 
same as what #each does out of the box.  "levels = 2" means, go one 
level further.  Consequently "level = 0" in my model would mean, do not 
step down at all.

Kind regards

	robert

-- 
remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end
http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/