Hi,

At Fri, 7 Feb 2003 20:56:28 +0900,
dblack / candle.superlink.net wrote:
> Fri Dec 20 00:16:06 2002  Nobuyoshi Nakada  <nobu.nokada / softhome.net>
> 
>    * re.c (rb_reg_match_pre, rb_reg_match_post, match_to_a,
>      match_select): return instances of same class as the original
>      string.  [ruby-dev:19119]
> 
> which applies to the $1, $2... sub-matches.  It caused scanf to blow
> up, and while I can fix it with a bunch of String.new() calls, I'm
> still left wondering what was wrong with having $1, $2... just be
> String objects.

Formerly, they were not thourough.

Redefining very common names in different manner would often
cause unexpected results.  I guess other names are better than
to_i and to_f.

-- 
Nobu Nakada