<< == push?

ruby-talk
1

I was just prepping a code sample for somebody out in the big wide
world, and doing that always makes me review my code, and I noticed I
was using Array#push a lot instead of << (I think that's Array#<<
actually?).

So, kind of a basic question, is << basically just idiomatic Ruby for
push? (This was a Rails project with a lot of custom JavaScript and I
think I just got in that particular mindset.)

···

--
Giles Bowkett
http://www.gilesgoatboy.org

2

Hi --

···

On Wed, 29 Nov 2006, Giles Bowkett wrote:

I was just prepping a code sample for somebody out in the big wide
world, and doing that always makes me review my code, and I noticed I
was using Array#push a lot instead of << (I think that's Array#<<
actually?).

So, kind of a basic question, is << basically just idiomatic Ruby for
push? (This was a Rails project with a lot of custom JavaScript and I
think I just got in that particular mindset.)

I *think* the only difference is that push can take more than one
argument.

David

--
                   David A. Black | dblack@wobblini.net
Author of "Ruby for Rails" [1] | Ruby/Rails training & consultancy [3]
DABlog (DAB's Weblog) [2] | Co-director, Ruby Central, Inc. [4]
[1] Ruby for Rails | [3] http://www.rubypowerandlight.com
[2] http://dablog.rubypal.com | [4] http://www.rubycentral.org

3

also

   << : generally returns self to allow chaining

   push : generally returns the elements pushed

-a

···

On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 dblack@wobblini.net wrote:

Hi --

On Wed, 29 Nov 2006, Giles Bowkett wrote:

I was just prepping a code sample for somebody out in the big wide
world, and doing that always makes me review my code, and I noticed I
was using Array#push a lot instead of << (I think that's Array#<<
actually?).

So, kind of a basic question, is << basically just idiomatic Ruby for
push? (This was a Rails project with a lot of custom JavaScript and I
think I just got in that particular mindset.)

I *think* the only difference is that push can take more than one
argument.

--
if you want others to be happy, practice compassion.
if you want to be happy, practice compassion. -- the dalai lama

4

Hi --

···

On Wed, 29 Nov 2006, ara.t.howard@noaa.gov wrote:

On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 dblack@wobblini.net wrote:

Hi --

On Wed, 29 Nov 2006, Giles Bowkett wrote:

I was just prepping a code sample for somebody out in the big wide
world, and doing that always makes me review my code, and I noticed I
was using Array#push a lot instead of << (I think that's Array#<<
actually?).

So, kind of a basic question, is << basically just idiomatic Ruby for
push? (This was a Rails project with a lot of custom JavaScript and I
think I just got in that particular mindset.)

I *think* the only difference is that push can take more than one
argument.

also

<< : generally returns self to allow chaining

push : generally returns the elements pushed

I'm not seeing that:

irb(main):003:0> [1,2,3].push(4,5)
=> [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
irb(main):004:0> [1,2,3] << 4
=> [1, 2, 3, 4]

David

--
                   David A. Black | dblack@wobblini.net
Author of "Ruby for Rails" [1] | Ruby/Rails training & consultancy [3]
DABlog (DAB's Weblog) [2] | Co-director, Ruby Central, Inc. [4]
[1] Ruby for Rails | [3] http://www.rubypowerandlight.com
[2] http://dablog.rubypal.com | [4] http://www.rubycentral.org

5

>>> I was just prepping a code sample for somebody out in the big wide
>>> world, and doing that always makes me review my code, and I noticed I
>>> was using Array#push a lot instead of << (I think that's Array#<<
>>> actually?).
>>>
>>> So, kind of a basic question, is << basically just idiomatic Ruby for
>>> push? (This was a Rails project with a lot of custom JavaScript and I
>>> think I just got in that particular mindset.)
>>
>> I *think* the only difference is that push can take more than one
>> argument.
>
> also
>
> << : generally returns self to allow chaining
>
> push : generally returns the elements pushed

I'm not seeing that:

irb(main):003:0> [1,2,3].push(4,5)
=> [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
irb(main):004:0> [1,2,3] << 4
=> [1, 2, 3, 4]

ah, that explains something. I couldn't open up my old code without
fiddling with it a bit, but changing << to push() across the board
killed something in the functionality. I didn't have time to find out
exactly what, but I think it's the only-one-arg thing that did it.

···

--
Giles Bowkett
http://www.gilesgoatboy.org