From: dblack@...
Date: 2003-07-21T19:18:50+09:00
Subject: Re: Proposal: Array#to_h, to simplify hash generation

Hi --

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Gavin Sinclair wrote:

> I like "make_hash".  We would get more flexibility if "make_hash" insisted
> on receiving two values for the block: one for key and one for value.  In
> one instance recently, I wanted to map the "filename" part of a data
> object to the object itself.  This, I think, is readable:
>    map = receipts.make_hash { |r| r.filename, r }
>
> Whereas in my pet case of mapping filename to size, we have
>
>    map = filenames.make_hash { |fn| fn, File.stat(fn).size }
>
> And your example comes out as
>
>    (1..10).make_hash { |i| i, f(i) }

(Wouldn't you have to wrap your two return values in an array to get
the above to parse?)

> I've raised an RCR for this (#148).

I'm not sure how this differs from (rejected) RCR#12 (except for
having to return a key as well as a value).


David

-- 
David Alan Black
home: dblack@superlink.net
work: blackdav@shu.edu
Web:  http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav