Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz / ruby-lang.org> writes:
> Hi,
>
> In message "Re: String not enumerable, what about IO? (was Re: Symbol < String in Ruby > 1.8)"
>     on Fri, 20 Oct 2006 20:49:47 +0900, Jim Weirich <jim / weirichhouse.org> writes:
>
> |I don't see how an enumerator is any less a "thing" than anything else.
>
> I think he assumes a "thins" should be more array-like than an
> enumerator.  Understandable.  I have a vague plan to create something
> more array-like (but lazy like generators) and make Enumerable#map
> etc. to return "that something".  It would have (almost) all the
> methods in Array.  If String#line would give us that something, David
> would not complain, I guess.
>
> The points left:
>
>   * the current behavior of Enumerable methods to give enumerators if
>     they don't have blocks given.  it was introduced when enumerators
>     were made built-in.  I need to check the discussion of the time.
>
>   * the name of that something.
>
> Any opinion?
>
>
> 							matz.

Arrazy!

I don't know about anybody else, but I have an expectation that [] is
'fast' (sub-linear).

Steve