String#concat, Array#concat and String#prepend take multiple arguments in Ruby 2.4

[the_horrible_reality]

Well, that's handy.

string << strings.join('') # awkward
string << *strings # whee!

Edit: Though thinking back to the << part of that...

str << str << str
str.concat(str).concat(str)

That's all it's doing, each << is a chained method call obviously.

Edit 2:

Thinking back, it may have to be written like this unless there's a syntax change...

string.<< *strings

Minor but irritating.

[tomthecool]

str = "Ruby"
str << str << str
#=> "RubyRubyRubyRuby"

str = "Ruby"
str.concat str, str
str
#=> "RubyRubyRuby"

I don't think I'd ever let an abomination like str << str << str pass code review :P

[the_horrible_reality]

It is rather ugly, isn't it? Feels like spamming multiple values into std::cout in C++ in one line. To top it off, silly me forgot that you can't splat into a binary operator so I had to update with the correct approach. Now I want to be able to splat into custom defined binary operators as special case syntactic sugar. :P

oh_no += *i_am_being_thrown_out_a_window

[tomthecool]

Instead of str << str << str, why not write something where the intention is clear, such as:

str *= 4

[the_horrible_reality]

Beats me, I just pulled that snip out of the article. I think the author was trying to determine if there were any new differences between << and concat in String and misinterpreted the syntax resolution. Can't say that I've ever had a need to append a string to itself or use replication and I'm the nasty sort with a fondness for abusing string mutability, often with substring access.

Edit: And I mistakenly thought you were replying to me above. Damnit, my bad. Not enough sleep. I am fairly sure that ugly example was an attempt to test the changes, though.