[#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: "Nikolai Weibull" <now@...>
Date: 2007-02-08 09:40:33 UTC
List: ruby-core #10243
On 2/8/07, Unknown <borg@uu3.net> wrote:
> 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?

I think it's time we see some actual use cases for String#ord.

  nikolai

In This Thread