>
> On Monday, June 25, 2012 12:00:01 PM UTC-4, Robert Klemme wrote:
And what's the use case for *that* method?
>
>
To convert an Enumerable to a Hash. Sorry, I should have specified that.
> I have no name for it yet, so call it #h.
>> >
>> > # Convert an Enumerable object to a Hash.
>> > #
>> > # [:a, 1, :b, 2].h
>> > # #=> {:a=>1, :b=>2}
>> > #
>> > # [:a, 1, :b, 2, :a, 3].h{ |v0,v1| v0.to_i + v1 }
>> > # #=> {:a=>4, :b=>2}
>> > #
>> > def h(init={})
>> > h = init
>>
>> You never assign h nor init so you could completely get rid of h.
>
>
??? What about `h[k] = v`, or am I misunderstanding?
> Btw, if you call the argument Hash "init" I would not necessarily
>> expect it to be modified. Maybe it's better to do
>>
>> h = init.dup
>>
>> Or, to save one instantiation
>>
>> def h(init = nil)
>> h = init ? init.dup : {}
>>
>> > if block_given?
>> > each_slice(2) do |k,v|
>> > h[k] = yield h[k], v
>>
>> I find it strange that you yield h[k] and not k. The caller can never
>> know what k was, while if you pass k he can look up in init and obtain
>> the value you now yield.
>
>
The idea behind that is to allow Symbol#to_proc to be useful.
a = [:a, 1, :b, 2, :a, 3]
i = Hash.new{ |h,k| h[k] = [] }
a.h(i, &:+) #=> {:a=>[1,3], :b=>[2]}
I considered other interfaces to the block but this one seemed like it
would be the most useful b/c of this.
It's totally mysterious what you are after here. The fact that you do
>> not have a name yet might be indicative that this methods are probably
>> not such a good idea. They do not look generally useful to me.
>
>
No, that's me simply not giving enough initial context, which sometimes I
do so not to skew others consideration. But not very helpful in the case,
clearly.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
ruby-talk-google group. To post to this group, send email to
[email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email
to [email protected]. For more options, visit this
group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/ruby-talk-google?hl=en
