gabriele renzi wrote:
<snip>
see the existing RCR, #277 IIRC. Maybe I should add your code (if you
allow me to do it), but I'm out of time ATM 
Anyway, I guess a C patch to current ruby would have more chance to
be
accepted 
Oh, and I definitely agree with you a Map mixin would be great
I think you meant RCR #278, Hash#collect_to_hash. RCR #277 is 'Make
def return something useful', which you should support, because I wrote
it. 
I've always wondered if it would have been better to have a List
superclass from which classes like Array and Hash would be subclasses.
But perhaps that's neither here nor there.
Regards,
Dan
Daniel Berger ha scritto:
gabriele renzi wrote:
<snip>
see the existing RCR, #277 IIRC. Maybe I should add your code (if you
allow me to do it), but I'm out of time ATM
Anyway, I guess a C patch to current ruby would have more chance to
be
accepted
Oh, and I definitely agree with you a Map mixin would be great
I think you meant RCR #278, Hash#collect_to_hash. RCR #277 is 'Make
def return something useful', which you should support, because I wrote
it.
actually, RCR261. But I definitely support your RCR
I've always wondered if it would have been better to have a List
superclass from which classes like Array and Hash would be subclasses.
in this case I disagree, since it would be an almost empty class, I think.
I like the idea of having easy to use mixin much more than the one about a reasonable class hierarchy