[Converters\as] do we really need this?

[Converters\as] do we really need this? judging from the options, we have 3 that are number related: .binary, .hex, .octal (and they are identical as the option for from; only doing the reverse operation), we have one that converts a string to ascii (!) - this could go as a separate function into the Strings module? - and the rest of the options are pretty much code-related: .code, .pretty, & .unwrapped are for converting a value to Arturo code (could also become one separate function) and .data works like a Collections/dictionary option (it does return a dictionary, doesn't it - not sure!). Sure thing is, we should either eliminate this module altogether, or rename it, and/or split the existing functions into different sub-functions, and/or distribute these sub-functions to different existing modules. (What am I writing here?! Who knows...)

https://github.com/arturo-lang/arturo/blob/411617a1906063cf0adfd3ac06804dc4b29403a0/src/library/Converters.nim#L66

import sequtils, strformat

import helpers/datasource

when not defined(NOASCIIDECODE):
    import helpers/strings

import vm/lib
import vm/[bytecode, errors, opcodes, parse]

import vm/values/printable

#=======================================
# Definitions
#=======================================

# TODO(Converters) resolving `from`/`to`/`as` clutter?
#  Right now, we have 4 different built-in function performing different-but-similar actions.
#  Is there any way to remove all ambiguity - by either reducing them, merging them, extending them or explaining their functionality more thoroughly?
#  labels: library, enhancement, open discussion, documentation

proc defineLibrary*() =

    #----------------------------
    # Functions
    #----------------------------

    # TODO(Converters\as) is `.unwrapped` working as expected?
    #  labels: library, bug

    # TODO(Converters\as) do we really need this?
    #  judging from the options, we have 3 that are number related:
    #  `.binary`, `.hex`, `.octal` (and they are identical as the
    #  option for `from`; only doing the reverse operation), we have
    #  one that converts a string to ascii (!) - this could go as a 
    #  separate function into the Strings module? - and the rest of
    #  the options are pretty much code-related: `.code`, `.pretty`,
    #  & `.unwrapped` are for converting a value to Arturo code 
    #  (could also become one separate function) and `.data` works
    #  like a Collections/dictionary option (it does return a dictionary,
    #  doesn't it - not sure!). Sure thing is, we should either eliminate
    #  this module altogether, or rename it, and/or split the existing functions
    #  into different sub-functions, and/or distribute these sub-functions
    #  to different existing modules. (What am I writing here?! Who knows...)
    #  labels: library, cleanup, open discussion
    builtin "as",
        alias       = unaliased,
        op          = opNop,

99c7aba7e5c1231f940f8ea91fbb20276a1de213

arturo-lang / arturo

[Converters\as] do we really need this? #1381