Hi,

In message "Re: String not enumerable, what about IO? (was Re: Symbol < String in Ruby > 1.8)"
    on Sat, 21 Oct 2006 01:11:36 +0900, dblack / wobblini.net writes:

|> 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
|
|(Do you mean #lines?)

Yes.

|> would not complain, I guess.
|
|Did you see Austin's by_* methods?
|
|   string.lines   # an array
|   string.by_lines { }   # enumeration (no intermediate array)
|   string.by_lines       # enumerator (or your "something"?)
|
|I really like that way of breaking it out.

Hmm, you think that "by_" means THAT much.

|How's Denver? :-)

Fine.  It's warmer than I was afraid.

							matz.