[#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: "Michael Selig" <michael.selig@...>
Date: 2007-02-07 22:24:58 UTC
List: ruby-core #10235
I have to agree with David here. All he is pointing out is that an  
implementation of String#ord which only works on single character strings  
may be a "waste". It is quite reasonable to explore ways of extending its  
domain to include all of the class if it makes sense to do so. Adding an  
optional index seems like a perfectly sensible thing to do to me - upward  
compatible with the "single-character only" version, simple & efficient to  
implement, and probably quite useful.

Mike.

On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 07:41:27 +1100, David Flanagan  
<david@davidflanagan.com> wrote:


> Geez!  What does it take to satisfy you guys!  :-)
>
> Seriously, though, I thought that my suggestion for an optional index  
> argument to ord was a modest and sensible one.  Actually, I thought I  
> was just pointing out an oversight and I'm surprised at the resistance  
> it has faced.  Given the richness of the core Ruby API, I assume that  
> decisions about adding methods are based on elegance, and that is  
> permitted or even desirable to have more than one way to do something.

In This Thread