[#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: Unknown <borg@...3.net>
Date: 2007-02-08 09:33:17 UTC
List: ruby-core #10242
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007, Micah Wylde wrote:

> I'm not a contributor, but I am a user of ruby, and there is a
> possibility that no one seems to have mentioned. What about having
> String.ord return an array of integers, with a one character string
> returning a one element array?
>
> So "test".ord => [116, 101, 115, 116]
> "a".org => [97]
>
I must disagree with you. This would make things even slower.
Usualy you use String::ord to get value of one specified char.
String::ord(index) sounds best from all propositions Ive seens here.
Its elegant anf fast.
Also.. if you want such behavior.. I think it would be better to provide
range functionality to ord aswell
"test".ord -> 116
"test".ord(1) -> 101
"test".ord(1..2) -> [101,115]

What Do you think guys about that?

> Under this scheme, referencing a particular number is no more
> difficult then it is now, just instead of "test"[2].ord, you'd do
> "test".ord[2]. The biggest disadvantage I can see is the requirement
> for creating the array, which for big strings could get expensive.
> However, if the user is worried about that they can just do
> "test"[2].ord[0], which would be significantly less expensive (though
> slightly more than the current scheme).
>
> I agree that there shouldn't be methods that only work with certain
> strings. That, I think, just causes confusion and goes against the
> object-oriented principles of ruby.
>
> -- 
> Micah Wylde
>
>

In This Thread