On Jul 31, 8:23 pm, Dan Zwell <dzw... / gmail.com> wrote:
> If all of the above is true, I would suggest removing the second
> parameter from this method, because it confuses plenty of newcomers.

Anecdotal evidence doesn't exactly merit a real rebuttal, but I found
the optional second parameter very intuitive and helpful. In Java I
hated having to write a for loop every time I wanted to initialize the
elements in an array, even when I wanted them to all have the same
contents, and I really like that I can just use one argument in Ruby.

So I agree with you that it's not necessary, but I say don't get rid
of something that's good just because there are other ways to do it.
If all methods are equally valid and easy to understand (as I consider
them to be in this case) then leaving in variety makes it more fun.

-$0.02
Regards,
Andrew