Hi --

On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 nobu.nokada / softhome.net wrote:

> 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.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

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

Doesn't that kind of cascading (i.e., subclassing and overriding) take
place all the time?  It seems very natural to me.  Also, until 1.8.0
this wasn't a problem; it's only now that the class of the objects has
changed.  I'm still not sure what the reason is for the change.  It
can't be just to catch people like me who override methods :-)


David

-- 
David Alan Black
home: dblack / candle.superlink.net
work: blackdav / shu.edu
Web:  http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav