Kristof Bastiaensen <kristof / vleeuwen.org> wrote:
> 
> I think it will not work with this syntax.  
> What means the following:
>   mymethod [ a ]
> call mymethod, and collect a for each iteration, or call mymethod
> with an array?

Same peoblem with hashes and blocks now, no?

> >>  I believe that in the case a collecting/non collecting dychotomy
> >> should exist it should be something at the convention level, like !
> >> for dangerous methods
> 
> to_enum.to_a works with the current syntax:
> (2..10).to_enum(:step, 3).to_a
> => [2, 5, 8]

Maybe a to_enum! (or #map_enum, or #map_over or #gather ...) that works
like to_enum but does the .to_a step at the end for you. (I really wish
to_enum had been called simply enum, incidentally - I'm a big fan of
brevity. Not just typing - as Paul Graham pointed out, to_enum takes
longer to say to yourself when reading over code, and thus slows you
down.)

> > Add % to the list of acceptable method name suffixes? (I'd say we've
> > pretty thoroughly colonised the keyboard by now - good free symbols are
> > hard to find.)
> 
> That's true.  I think every common symbol is used.
> Fortunately they are arranged so as not to make ugly combinations.  
> Imagine having to type $_->$*@ or something. 
> Adding new syntax in an elegant way is not so easy...

Very true. And Ruby has an excellent track record in that respect.

martin