> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gavin Sinclair [mailto:gsinclair / soyabean.com.au]
> Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 12:16 AM
> To: ruby-talk / ruby-lang.org
> Subject: Re: GetoptLong#to_hash
> 
> 
> That doesn't sound like a great idea to me, unless *all* the 
> methods of Hash
> are useful in an "options" context.  (They may well be; I've 
> had very small
> exposure to GetoptLong.)

I disagree.  Why must *all* the options be *useful*?  I'm sure more than one
person here has subclassed a base class where we never really expect to use
methods x, y and z.  Not that they wouldn't work, you just wouldn't use
them.

As it stands now, GetoptLong acts like a cousin of Hash, rather than a
child.  Looks like a Hash, smells like a Hash but...it's not a Hash.  This
only leads to confusion, IMHO.  Besides, it already sounds like more than
one person is resolving their problems with GetoptLong by slapping the
results into a Hash anyway.  I know I have.

I guess I'm at the .03 cent stage now. :)

Regards,

Dan


> 
> I'm just saying this because Java made a hash (ha ha) of 
> their original
> Stack class be extending Vector.  Simply wrong.
> 
> Cheers,
> Gavin
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Berger, Daniel" <djberge / qwest.com>
> To: "ruby-talk ML" <ruby-talk / ruby-lang.org>
> Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 10:24 PM
> Subject: RE: GetoptLong#to_hash
> 
> 
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Pit Capitain [mailto:pit / capitain.de]
> > > Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 2:39 AM
> > > To: ruby-talk / ruby-lang.org
> > > Subject: Re: GetoptLong#to_hash
> > >
> > >
> > > On 1 Aug 2002, at 15:41, Paul Duncan wrote:
> > >
> > > > I find myself converting the results of option parsing into
> > > a hash.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > Let's take it a step further.  Scrap the current 
> implementation and make
> > GetoptLong a subclass of Hash.
> >
> > Just my .02.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Dan
>