From: Guillaume Marcais <guslist@...>
Date: 2004-04-05T00:02:47+09:00
Subject: Re: deciding between ruby and python

Just a as we are on the subject. Should Ojbect#to_s return self.to_str 
if it is defined instead of the default value?

EX:
class Toto; end
Toto.new.to_s		# => "#<Toto:0x31f7ac>"

class Toto; def to_str; "toto"; end; end
Toto.new.to_s

The last statement today returns "<#Toto:...>. Should it return "toto" 
instead? Meaning, shouldn't the string representation of an object 
(returned by #to_s) be the same as it String masqueraded behavior? Of 
course, nothing prevents you from to define to_s as to_str if you 
want... Just wondering about what default behavior makes the most 
sense.

Guillaume.



Le 4 avr. 04, � 10:18, Yukihiro Matsumoto a �crit :

> Hi,
>
> In message "Re: deciding between ruby and python"
>     on 04/04/04, "David A. Black" <dblack@wobblini.net> writes:
>
> |That said, I've also never been 100% sure why String#+ couldn't be
> |more tolerant -- that is, allow objects to present their #to_s
> |representations, rather than insisting that they either be Strings or
> |have a #to_str method.
>
> Pre 1.0 Ruby was very tolerant about types: 1 + "2" gave 3, and
> "2" + 1 gave "21".
>
> But this tend to hide the type mismatch error, so that I had to follow
> the "crash early" principle from Pragmatic Programmers.
>
> 							matz.
>