«

What's going on with splat in 1.9?


$ ruby -e 'def foo; return *[1]; end; p foo'
1

$ ruby-1.9 -e 'def foo; return *[1]; end; p foo'
[1]


Gary Wright

From: Gary Wright [private.php?do=newpm&u=]=20
# What's going on with splat in 1.9?
# $ ruby -e 'def foo; return *[1]; end; p foo'
# 1
# $ ruby-1.9 -e 'def foo; return *[1]; end; p foo'
# [1]

consistency perhaps?

r@pc4all:~# ruby -e 'def foo; return *[1]; end; p foo'
1
r@pc4all:~# ruby -e 'def foo; return *[1,2]; end; p foo'
[1, 2]

kind regards -botp

Peña, Botp wrote:
> ...
>
> consistency perhaps?
>
> r@pc4all:~# ruby -e 'def foo; return *[1]; end; p foo'
> 1
> r@pc4all:~# ruby -e 'def foo; return *[1,2]; end; p foo'
> [1, 2]
>
> kind regards -botp

It seems somehow less consistent when viewed another way though. I think
splatting a literal array should be equivalent to having written a plain
comma-delimited list:

def bar(*args); end

bar 1
bar(*[1])
bar 1, 2
bar(*[1, 2])

In which case, for return:

return *[1] => return 1 => 1
return *[1, 2] => return 1, 2 => [1, 2]

Its not going to really bother me at any rate though.

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

Men thats a real bummer, i love "peeling" arrays like this:

a = *[1] #=> 1
a = *[1,2] # => [1,2]

Some of my code is gonna break.




Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In message "Re: ruby 1.9 splat in return statement, bug or feature?"
> on Sat, 17 Feb 2007 12:36:20 +0900, Gary Wright <>
> writes:
>
> |What's going on with splat in 1.9?
> |
> |$ ruby -e 'def foo; return *[1]; end; p foo'
> |1
> |
> |$ ruby-1.9 -e 'def foo; return *[1]; end; p foo'
> |[1]
>
> In 1.9, values (i.e. result of splat) are always represented by array,
> so that we won't confuse array as an value with array as values
> representation.
>
> matz.

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.