[#10193] String.ord — David Flanagan <david@...>

Hi,

41 messages 2007/02/05
[#10197] Re: String.ord — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/02/06

Hi,

[#10198] Re: String.ord — David Flanagan <david@...> 2007/02/06

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#10199] Re: String.ord — Daniel Berger <djberg96@...> 2007/02/06

David Flanagan wrote:

[#10200] Re: String.ord — David Flanagan <david@...> 2007/02/06

Daniel Berger wrote:

[#10208] Re: String.ord — "Nikolai Weibull" <now@...> 2007/02/06

On 2/6/07, David Flanagan <david@davidflanagan.com> wrote:

[#10213] Re: String.ord — David Flanagan <david@...> 2007/02/06

Nikolai Weibull wrote:

[#10215] Re: String.ord — "Nikolai Weibull" <now@...> 2007/02/06

On 2/6/07, David Flanagan <david@davidflanagan.com> wrote:

[#10216] Re: String.ord — David Flanagan <david@...> 2007/02/07

Nikolai Weibull wrote:

[#10288] Socket library should support abstract unix sockets — <noreply@...>

Bugs item #8597, was opened at 2007-02-13 16:10

12 messages 2007/02/13

[#10321] File.basename fails on Windows root paths — <noreply@...>

Bugs item #8676, was opened at 2007-02-15 10:09

11 messages 2007/02/15

[#10323] Trouble with xmlrpc — James Edward Gray II <james@...>

Some of the Ruby code used by TextMate makes use of xmlrpc/

31 messages 2007/02/15
[#10324] Re: Trouble with xmlrpc — "Berger, Daniel" <Daniel.Berger@...> 2007/02/15

> -----Original Message-----

[#10326] Re: Trouble with xmlrpc — James Edward Gray II <james@...> 2007/02/15

On Feb 15, 2007, at 1:29 PM, Berger, Daniel wrote:

[#10342] Re: Trouble with xmlrpc — James Edward Gray II <james@...> 2007/02/16

While I am complaining about xmlrpc, we have another issue. It's

[#10343] Re: Trouble with xmlrpc — Alex Young <alex@...> 2007/02/16

James Edward Gray II wrote:

[#10344] Re: Trouble with xmlrpc — James Edward Gray II <james@...> 2007/02/16

On Feb 16, 2007, at 12:08 PM, Alex Young wrote:

Re: Including classes

From: Mauricio Fernandez <mfp@...>
Date: 2007-02-01 23:23:05 UTC
List: ruby-core #10165
On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 06:49:55AM +0900, Ola Bini wrote:
> _why wrote:
> >On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 10:58:52PM +0900, Austin Ziegler wrote:
> >>On 2/1/07, Ola Bini <ola.bini@ki.se> wrote:
> >>>And further, it's a question of flexibility. Why shouldn't you be able
> >>>to do it?
> >>Classes represent objects that contain state. Classes have
> >>initialization; modules don't contain state (as such).
> >
> >Well, actually, the difference between classes and modules is very
> >small, as they both are stored in RClass.
[...]
> 
> Yeah, I know that. And that's also the reason I'm asking. The only 
> restriction against doing this is an artificial check. It seems Ruby 
> isn't about adding restrictions without reason. So, I guess I'm asking 
> for a very good reason... =) Matz?

This has been discussed before; what you are suggesting was championed by
matju ~3.5 years ago, before he abandoned Ruby (I was surprised at myself for
my vivid recollection of that discussion, I hadn't realized it'd been so much
time since).  See the thread starting with [[ruby-core:1378]].

-- 
Mauricio Fernandez  -   http://eigenclass.org   -  singular Ruby

In This Thread