On 6/21/07, Trans <transfire / gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Jun 20, 3:21 pm, Alexander Presber <aljos... / weisshuhn.de> wrote:
> > Hello everybody,
> >
> > Could you please take a look at the result of the following statements:
> >
> > irb(main):001:0> a = {'foo' => 'bar', 'baz' => 'qux'}
> > => {"baz"=>"qux", "foo"=>"bar"}
> >
> > irb(main):002:0> a.reject{|k,v| k=='foo' }
> > => {"baz"=>"qux"}
> >
> > irb(main):003:0> a.select{|k,v| k=='baz' }
> > => [["baz", "qux"]]
> >
> > The result of the reject statement is clearly sensible: the original
> > hash minus the element with the key 'foo'.
> > But what about select? Shouldn't it return the same hash (instead of
> > an array of key-value pairs)?
>
> I have to concur. I've never liked that. You'd think there'd be some
> way to have Enumerable act in accordance with the class it is
> effecting, rather then dropping to the "LCD" --an array.

So do I, Do you happen to  have some remedies for this in Facets?
I am trying to unify such things in my library, but I am not building
something even close to Factes[1], however if you are interested in
some peaces let me know.

Cheers
Robert

[1] because than I would just use Facets which is really great, but I
want a small library and I want magic dot notation, which are liked by
few only :(

R.
>
> T.
>
>
>


-- 
You see things; and you say Why?
But I dream things that never were; and I say Why not?
-- George Bernard Shaw