[#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: String.ord

From: Daniel Berger <djberg96@...>
Date: 2007-02-06 04:09:27 UTC
List: ruby-core #10199
David Flanagan wrote:
> Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> In message "Re: String.ord"
>>     on Tue, 6 Feb 2007 07:03:05 +0900, David Flanagan 
>> <david@davidflanagan.com> writes:
>>
>> |Does anyone (Matz?) know why the (new in 1.9) String.ord method is 
>> |restricted to one-character Strings?
>>
>> I just followed Python convention here.
> 
> Ah ha.  I don't know Python well enough, or maybe I would have realized 
> that.
> 
> It still seems to me that there ought to be a way to get the 1.8 
> behavior in a single method call rather than having to call [] and then 
> call ord on the result.  If you don't want to modify ord to accept an 
> index, Would you consider ordAt(x) or codepoint(x) or something like that?
> 
>     David

How would String#ord_at be a savings over String#[].ord?

I'm afraid I don't see such a method as being general enough to warrant 
inclusion as part of the core class.

Regards,

Dan

In This Thread