On Dec 19, 2005, at 10:35 AM, James Edward Gray II wrote:

> On Dec 19, 2005, at 9:25 AM, Logan Capaldo wrote:
>
>>
>> On Dec 19, 2005, at 10:15 AM, James Edward Gray II wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 19, 2005, at 9:02 AM, Logan Capaldo wrote:
>>>
>>>> Apparently splat will splat almost anything as long as its to_a  
>>>> method returns an array (a reasonable assumption). I don't know  
>>>> if I really like this. I always kind of thought of splat as  
>>>> syntax (like &), not really as a method (operator).
>>>
>>> & works on anything with a to_proc().  See:
>>>
>>> http://blogs.pragprog.com/cgi-bin/pragdave.cgi/Tech/Ruby/ToProc.rdoc
>>>
>>> James Edward Gray II
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Ok. I was unaware of that. But to_proc is more like to_ary than  
>> to_a, IMO. (Not that I've ever seen a to_p ;) ). I could maybe go  
>> for splat working on anything that responded to to_ary, but  
>> currently it just personally feels kinda icky.
>
> Wish granted.  ;)

> [snip example code]
>

> to_ary() is favored.  Otherwise, to_a() is used.
>
> James Edward Gray II
>
>

Well my real wish was that the otherwise didn't exist but I takes  
whats I can gets I suppose. If it really bothers me I'll just switch  
to Java or Python. Those languages match my exact ideals of how splat  
and & should work. (kidding)