Trans wrote:

> I do not think there's much hope for multiple return values of this
> sort --not unless Ruby were to change significantly. A differntiation
> would have to be made between the returning of an array vs. the
> returning of multiple values. Now I like the idea of returning multiple
> values. I always wanted a way to feed return values into another method
> as arguments _directly_ (without special * notation). But I suspect
> multiple return values will simply cause too many undesired backward
> compatability issues.
> 
> But what is worse about multiple return values is also what can be
> frustrating about parameters: recalling the order of information. At
> some point I can't help but feel like things would be a whole lot
> easier if it were only a hash that could go into a method and only hash
> that could come out.

Let's keep talk about this for a moment.

We'll finally get keyword arguments in Rite and they're already in Ruby 
1.9 as well.

But what about keyword return values? How would those look?

I'm not sure how this would work out, but I guess we would need to build 
it on the (a, b) = [1, 2] syntax.

Perhaps (result: a, changed: b) = obj.strip! would work.

I think the case of (result: result, changed: changed) would be quite 
common so perhaps it would be a good idea to introduce a short-cut. 
Maybe (:result, :changed) = rhs.

What do you think about this? I guess I'm getting obscure here, but this 
might be an alternative to more complex solutions...