On Feb 7, 2007, at 3:57 PM, Matt Pattison wrote:
> On 2/8/07, David Flanagan <david / davidflanagan.com> wrote:
>> Geez!  What does it take to satisfy you guys!  :-)
>>
>> Seriously, though, I thought that my suggestion for an optional index
>> argument to ord was a modest and sensible one.  Actually, I thought I
>> was just pointing out an oversight and I'm surprised at the  
>> resistance
>> it has faced.  Given the richness of the core Ruby API, I assume that
>> decisions about adding methods are based on elegance, and that is
>> permitted or even desirable to have more than one way to do  
>> something.
>
> FWIW, I think ord_at or a similarly named method sounds like a good  
> idea.
> It's simple, and it's a good future alternative to the Ruby 1.8 and  
> earlier
> behaviour of String#[] (when given a Fixnum argument).

I'll throw in my "me too" - I also think this functionality would be  
useful.

However, I have to say: as a native English speaker, I don't find the  
choice of "ord" very clear. What does it stand for? "Ordinal"?

JavaScript's "charCodeAt" is a little too verbose for me; I'd  
personally prefer "code_at" for the method name.