Hi --

On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Eero Saynatkari wrote:

> On 2006.10.12 03:36, Sean Russell wrote:
>> On Wednesday 11 October 2006 13:55, Eero Saynatkari wrote:
>>> On 2006.10.12 02:32, dblack / wobblini.net wrote:
>>>> The word 'splay' occurs to me, as something that sounds sort of
>> ...
>>> David, you thought 'splat' was whimsical :P
>>
>> Actually, "splay" has a well defined, non-whimsical, and appropriate
>> definition:
>>
>> 	1. To display; to spread.
>>
>> As in, splaying your fingers.
>>
>> It also means to dislocate, to castrate, and to render oblique.
>> However, I've only ever heard it used with the first definition: to
>> spread out, and I haven't picked up any humorous or negative
>> connotations for it.
>
> 'splay' holds no intuitive advantage of clarity over 'splat'--in
> particular to non-english-speakers--besides which 'splat' is the
> currently used word thereby holding the home advantage.

I'm not looking for intuitiveness; it's OK if people have to learn a
new word :-)  I guess to_splat has the home advantage but it's very
new and Matz has, I think, clearly indicated willingness to discuss
the name and consider suggestions.

> I will actually throw my hat in for the excellent earlier
> suggestion of *@ and reiterate my opposition to #to_a or
> its derivatives as they are completely inaccurate.

I think if you're representing an object as an array, then some form
of to_array must be at least somewhat accurate.  But I like *@ too.
This really is more a matter of unary operator definition than data
conversion.


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