On 7/18/07, [email protected] [email protected] wrote:
different. In the case of Nil#to_i and Nil#split, I think the
difference is something like this:
#split suggests that nil has the property of “being composite” (i.e.,
it is something that can split). #to_i, however, just means that nil
has been assigned an arbitrary integer representation. It doesn’t
mean that nil has any particular properties.
I have thought about a different approach,
what are the chances that the #to_i message is sent to nil by purpose
and what are the chances that it is done by error.
I would weight usefulness against purity ( and consistency for that
I simply thought and still think that chances that somebody uses
nil#to_i on purpose are at least as slim as that somebody sends split
to nil, and only now I complain about inconsistency. Obviously that
was not clear at all.
Another example, what are the chances that Hash#map returning an array
is more useful than returning it a hash. I have complained about this
“inconsistency” not because it is an inconsistency, but because I feel
it is an useless, counter productive inconsistency.
Yet another example, is it useful that the following is not
implemented in standard Ruby
def <=> other; to_s <=> other.to_s end
I feel these are questions that can be discussed in order to make Ruby
advance, I am sure that Matz weights CRCs much more serious if there
has been discussions like these here…
Pitty if we miss these chances…
I just guess that the usage of the word inconsistency has been a bad
error of my part, but is it not clear from my strange English that I
am not a native speaker ???
Yes you can say: “What, Really, You are not a native speaker,