[#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: Gavin Kistner <gavin@...>
Date: 2007-02-08 05:27:35 UTC
List: ruby-core #10240
On Feb 7, 2007, at 3:57 PM, Matt Pattison wrote:
> On 2/8/07, 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.
>
> FWIW, I think ord_at or a similarly named method sounds like a good  
> idea.
> It's simple, and it's a good future alternative to the Ruby 1.8 and  
> earlier
> behaviour of String#[] (when given a Fixnum argument).

I'll throw in my "me too" - I also think this functionality would be  
useful.

However, I have to say: as a native English speaker, I don't find the  
choice of "ord" very clear. What does it stand for? "Ordinal"?

JavaScript's "charCodeAt" is a little too verbose for me; I'd  
personally prefer "code_at" for the method name.

In This Thread