On Jun 3, 2008, at 10:42 AM, Akinori MUSHA wrote:
> It was my assumption that was wrong.  I thought Array#collect returns
> an object of the receiver's class so I changed it without asking, but
> I realized it didn't.  So I reverted the change and decided to wait
> for the discussion to reach conclusions.  That's all.  Let's keep the
> discussion.

If Array#map returns an array and Set#map returns a set, then  
shouldn't Hash#map return a hash?

Perhaps #map and #collect should stay as they are and there should be  
a new method defined for Array, Set, and Hash that returns an  
instance of the collection instead of an instance of Array.  Changing  
the definition of Set#map and Hash#map would most likely break  
existing code.

Gary Wright