Hi --

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006, Bill Kelly wrote:

> From: <dblack / wobblini.net>
>> 
>> Am I the only one who thinks that "splat" is a goofy, babyish word,
>> and while OK to throw around on mailing lists, really not expressive
>> of anything technically specific?
>
> I've started two replies on this general notion over the past two
> days, but hadn't sent them. . . . Who knows, maybe this third attempt...
>
> First, I'm not totally married to "to_splat", although I had no trouble
> guessing what it meant.
>
> But I've always enjoyed referring to "*" as splat notation, or the
> splat operator, as in: the contents of this array will be splatted
> into the argument list.
>
> I know many of us find programming in ruby fun.  And since I find
> the splatting of args to be a fun visual metaphor, it doesn't seem
> to bother me that the term is not technically specific.  It's still
> visual and visceral.
>
> I'm not against looking for a *better* term than splat, but I
> do wonder if it would be possible to committee-ize the fun out of
> ruby.

This isn't an attack on fun by non-fun.  I've found Ruby fun for six
years, and there's never been a "to_splat" method.  And there's no
committee; it's a benevolent dictatorship :-)

> And so if we're going to take a fun, metaphorical term, and replace
> it with a dry technical term, I hope the value of the new term's
> technical specificity really does outweigh the little splash of color
> and fun that may have been lost from the language in the trade.

How about a fun technical term, like all the other terms in Ruby? :-)


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] http://www.manning.com/black | [3] http://www.rubypowerandlight.com
[2] http://dablog.rubypal.com    | [4] http://www.rubycentral.org