Hi --

On Thu, 19 Oct 2006, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

> Hi,
>
> In message "Re: String not enumerable, what about IO? (was Re: Symbol < String in Ruby > 1.8)"
>    on Thu, 19 Oct 2006 20:36:28 +0900, dblack / wobblini.net writes:
>
> |Otherwise -- if lines is an enumerator, rather than some lines -- it
> |feels to me like Ruby is taking over too much.  It's as if I'm being
> |allowed to say "I want lines from this string", but Ruby knows better:
> |I don't *really* want lines, even if I think I do.
> |
> |That kind of steering away from the semantics of the method names
> |makes me uncomfortable.  If I need an enumerator, I want the language
> |to give me a way to ask for one clearly; and if I ask for "things", I
> |want the things.
>
> Hmm, maybe the name Enumerator does not make you feel like it's a
> collection.  What if Enumerator is renamed to some other name, for
> example, DelayedCollection or something?

Interesting.  That might indeed make it feel more like something I was
asking for.  I still feel, though, like the plain plural "things"
method suggests an actually collection much, much more than it
suggests anything else.  But I'll ponder it some more.


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