[ruby-talk:00480] Re: Now another totally different ;-)

On Tue, 13 Jul 1999, you wrote:
>In message "[ruby-talk:00471] Re: Now another totally different ;-)"
>    on 99/07/12, Clemens Hintze <[e-mail]> writes:

[...]

>I see. Your opinion also seems right. The matter to consider may be
>the degree of benefit in daily programming. That is, how general
>enumerable classes become convenient by Enumerable#[].

I often was gone thru the lacks-a-nail school :-)))

But, of course, you have found the point to be considered!

[...]

>Under my own criterion, Only File and Range are naturally will be held
>x.to_a[i] == x[i]. IO and Dir are not suitable to be so,  because IO
>is nondeterministic, dir[i] is just not natural. 

Agree.

>
>The above discussion may be not enough to decide to reject Cle's
>Enumerable#[], but I feel such [] is too special yet. 

Perhaps it is. :-)

I was only so obstinate, as I have got the feeling, that the proposal
would be rejected without deeply understand my reasons. Sorry if I
was wrong! :-}

But now, as I have explained all my reasons, and they are
understood by you, I will step back and look what you all decide for
that proposal. :-)

But please be consistent. If the decision is not to have
`Enumerable#[]' please also remove `Enumerable#index'. As I think all
reasons FOR implementing `index' are also valid for `[]' and all
AGAINST `[]' are also true against `index'.

BTW: Has anybody already had a look onto my class Sequence, posted
some days before? Are there already decisions, whether it should not
be made into a new class, but be put into class Range? If not, would
class Sequence become part of the standard distribution?

Sorry for seeming unpatient. I only try to keep you sleepless ;-))))

[...]

>I'm being amazed how many you you make new proporsals! =)

I have some new ones behind my back! But don't hold breath! ;-)))

>
>-- gotoken

\cle