Thanks Andrew.

As I said, I just posted because I wondered because it wasn't
included, no need to take it as a "feature request" ;-)

I'm also interested on other insights from Core :)


On Sep 30, 9:03 am, Andrew Dupont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The "size" method comes from Enumerable#size. Array and Hash both have
> it because they both mixin Enumerable, of course. It's a type-agnostic
> way to get the number of items in a collection, since not all
> collections have a "length" property.
> This isn't the case for strings. Strings always have a "length"
> property. So the argument for String#size, as Sylvain says, is
> consistency. The argument against, as Jeff says, is bloat. I don't
> care much either way, myself, but maybe someone else from Core has an
> opinion.
> For now, Sylvain, just define String#size on your own. I doubt this'll
> make it into core unless Sam thinks it's worth doing.
> Cheers,
> Andrew
> On Sep 30, 12:49 am, jdalton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I am a bit confused... what would "size" provide on other objects??
> > Also what is to stop you from adding the "50 bytes" to your own code?

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Prototype: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to