From: Jonas Delfs <jonas@...>
Date: 2002-03-28T00:49:22+09:00
Subject: Re: Hash.new(Hash.new) doesn't use Hash.new as default value

"Yukihiro Matsumoto" <matz@ruby-lang.org> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1017241889.836825.26588.nullmailer@ev.netlab.jp...
> In message "Re: Hash.new(Hash.new) doesn't use Hash.new as default value"
>     on 02/03/27, ts <decoux@moulon.inra.fr> writes:
>
> | With 1.7 you'll have the possibility to write
> |
> | Hash.new { Hash.new }
> |
> | and each times a key is not defined, ruby will evaluate the block, the
> | result of the block will be stored in the Hash and ruby will do what you
> | want.
>
> It does not store the evaluated default value.  Should it?

If not it will not be possible to do
var['index']['anotherIndex'] = 'value'
without having defined var['index'] to be a Hash first, so in this case:
yes.
But, I can also think of situations where it would be very unhandy if an
index gets a value just by accessing it.

Maybe we can provide an optional argument to 'new'?

--
Mvh./Best Regards
Jonas Delfs, http://delfs.dk