--- gabriele renzi <surrender_it / rc1.vip.ukl.yahoo.com> wrote: > il Sun, 6 Jun 2004 17:10:57 +0900, Jeff Mitchell > <quixoticsycophant / yahoo.com> ha scritto:: > >Why should you expect [] to imply hash-like behavior in the first place? It's > >just a convenience method. What was the problem with the #lookup and #store > >suggestion at [ruby-talk:102505]? > > I believe Sean is correct in saying that what he defines as hash-like > behaviour is usage of [] with arbitrary objects. S > uggesting fetch and store is ok, but for many things it does not work > (say, pstore does not seem to have #store and #lookup, yet it has > hash-like behaviour via []) This is the fault of PStore or of the lack of agreed-upon semantics for classes with hash-like behavior. There should be a standard list which includes the definition of such behavior. Here, I'll start the list now: hash-like: #fetch, #store array-like: #at, #store Any others? How about tree-like? I want this list to be part of the ruby standard -- clearly documented so that implementers know they should define #fetch and #store for the hash-like classes they write. [] should be viewed as convenience only. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/