Jeremy Henty wrote:

> Sorry about that.  I was just trying to be concise.  The point I was
> making (which Daniel DeLorme also makes elsewhere in the thread) is
> that the convention already exists that Klass(x) means "coerce x to an
> instance of Klass", rather than "call Klass.new()".  As least it does
> for many values of Klass, so to make all instances of Klass() synonyms
> for Klass.new() would be seriously incompatible.  I'm sure there's no
> chance of it happening in Ruby 1 .  I don't know if anyone's suggested
> making Ruby 2 more consistent about this.

Not so. Just becaue they would default to Klass.new does not mean they
could not be overriden  with a variation of functionality -- as is the
case with some of those built in.

T.