T. Onoma wrote:
> On Friday 23 January 2004 06:43 pm, Gennady wrote:
> 
>>Patrick Bennett wrote:
>>
>>>Hmmm, thanks, but it's a bit 'non-obvious' to casual Ruby programmers
>>>(who will have to understand my code).  'to_a' is pretty darn clear.  :(
>>>Matz, somebody?  Why is to_a being obsoleted?  :(
>>
>>I would not call "to_a" very obvious, as compared to, say, "to_array"
>>(if one existed). "[ *o ]" is more obvious in a sense that it is
>>comprised of two constructs one MUST know to read any Ruby program: "[]"
>>makes an array and "*" expands an object in-place.
> 
> 
> I hadn't heard of this deprecation. Waht is the reasoning? If x.to_a is going 
> away, to be exchanged for the use of [*x], will to_h also follow and be 
> replaced by [**x]?
> 
> T.
> 
> 
As far as I understand, only the default to_a (Object#to_a) is becoming 
obsolete (it gives a warning in Ruby 1.8.1). Many built-in classes will 
continue to provide their own to_a implementations. As for "to_h", it 
was never a default method, so you sarcasm is not justified here ;-).

But again, I would love to hear about it from somebody intimate with 
Ruby development.

Gennady.