On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Conrad Schneiker wrote:

> Robert Feldt wrote:
> 
> # On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Jean Michel wrote:
> # 
> # > I like to consider an array conceptually as a special case of hash 
> where
> # > the keys are restricted to be positive integers. So I am very opposed 
> to
> # > choices which  make them differ  more than  necessary (in the  spirit 
> of
> # >
> # I fully agree with this and would like to add that its easier to
> # learn one method name than two...
> 
> Likewise.

In spite of being an advocate of having two different names, I do
agree that conceptually an array is essentially a hash on positive
integers.  (See for example [ruby-talk:6611] and [ruby-talk:6663].)
In fact, looking at arrays and hashes that way makes me wonder about
what *exactly* is common to them, and what implications that has.  I
keep thinking of a phantom module called "Hashable", and wishing it
existed....  

[...]
> Overall, *#values* seems like the more natural generic term, which seems 
> more likely to accommodate any subsequent future generalizations that 
> people might discover.

I continue to gravitate toward the different terms (value for hash,
element for array), though if it's to be one term I'd agree that it
should be "value".  For some reason I'm not convinced that the
underlying array-hash structural similarity means that the terms
should be the same, or developed in parallel.  (For instance, I've
never missed having Array#has_value?)  I don't think I can really
argue it beyond the level of reflecting the terms I'm used to, though.


David

-- 
David Alan Black
home: dblack / candle.superlink.net
work: blackdav / shu.edu
Web:  http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav