[#10492] Ruby 1.8.6 preview3 has been released — "Akinori MUSHA" <knu@...>

Hi,

26 messages 2007/03/04
[#10500] Re: Ruby 1.8.6 preview3 has been released — Hugh Sasse <hgs@...> 2007/03/05

On Mon, 5 Mar 2007, Akinori MUSHA wrote:

[#10507] Dynamic Array#join with block — <noreply@...>

Patches item #9055, was opened at 2007-03-05 19:57

12 messages 2007/03/05
[#10520] Re: [ ruby-Patches-9055 ] Dynamic Array#join with block — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2007/03/06

Hi,

[#10594] grave bug in 1.8.6's thread implementation — Sylvain Joyeux <sylvain.joyeux@...4x.org>

In ext/thread/thread.c, remove_one leaves the list in an inconsistent state.

15 messages 2007/03/14
[#10596] Re: [PATCH] grave bug in 1.8.6's thread implementation — MenTaLguY <mental@...> 2007/03/14

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 00:15:57 +0900, Sylvain Joyeux <sylvain.joyeux@m4x.org> wrote:

[#10597] Re: [PATCH] grave bug in 1.8.6's thread implementation — Sylvain Joyeux <sylvain.joyeux@...4x.org> 2007/03/14

> > The fix is in thread-mutex-remove_one.diff.

[#10598] Re: [PATCH] grave bug in 1.8.6's thread implementation — MenTaLguY <mental@...> 2007/03/14

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 01:19:04 +0900, Sylvain Joyeux <sylvain.joyeux@m4x.org> wrote:

[#10599] Re: [PATCH] grave bug in 1.8.6's thread implementation — Sylvain Joyeux <sylvain.joyeux@...4x.org> 2007/03/14

On Wednesday 14 March 2007 17:29, MenTaLguY wrote:

[#10600] Re: [PATCH] grave bug in 1.8.6's thread implementation — MenTaLguY <mental@...> 2007/03/14

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 01:48:42 +0900, Sylvain Joyeux <sylvain.joyeux@m4x.org> wrote:

[#10615] Multiton in standard library — TRANS <transfire@...>

Hi--

16 messages 2007/03/15
[#10619] Re: Multiton in standard library — Tom Pollard <tomp@...> 2007/03/16

[#10620] Re: Multiton in standard library — TRANS <transfire@...> 2007/03/16

On 3/15/07, Tom Pollard <tomp@earthlink.net> wrote:

[#10646] Marshal.dump shouldn't complain about singletons if the _dump method is defined — <noreply@...>

Bugs item #9376, was opened at 2007-03-19 15:58

12 messages 2007/03/19
[#10647] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-9376 ] Marshal.dump shouldn't complain about singletons if the _dump method is defined — Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@...> 2007/03/19

noreply@rubyforge.org wrote:

[#10648] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-9376 ] Marshal.dump shouldn't complain about singletons if the _dump method is defined — Sylvain Joyeux <sylvain.joyeux@...4x.org> 2007/03/19

On Monday 19 March 2007 18:01, Urabe Shyouhei wrote:

[#10651] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-9376 ] Marshal.dump shouldn't complain about singletons if the _dump method is defined — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/03/19

Hi,

[#10665] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-9376 ] Marshal.dump shouldn't complain about singletons if the _dump method is defined — "Chris Carter" <cdcarter@...> 2007/03/20

On 3/19/07, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:

[#10712] Ruby Method Signatures (was Re: Multiton in standard library) — "Rick DeNatale" <rick.denatale@...>

On 3/19/07, TRANS <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:

10 messages 2007/03/21
[#10715] Re: Ruby Method Signatures (was Re: Multiton in standard library) — Jos Backus <jos@...> 2007/03/22

On 3/19/07, TRANS <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:

[#10798] Virtual classes and 'real' classes -- why? — "John Lam (CLR)" <jflam@...>

I was wondering if someone could help me understand why there's a parallel =

12 messages 2007/03/28
[#10799] Re: Virtual classes and 'real' classes -- why? — MenTaLguY <mental@...> 2007/03/28

On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 04:44:16 +0900, "John Lam (CLR)" <jflam@microsoft.com> wrote:

Ruby Method Signatures (was Re: Multiton in standard library)

From: "Rick DeNatale" <rick.denatale@...>
Date: 2007-03-21 20:23:55 UTC
List: ruby-core #10712
On 3/19/07, TRANS <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:

> Which reminds me, it would be nice of Method could return a
> representation of a methods signature. I've run into this need
> elsewhere too.

Thinking about this a bit, I'm not sure how much more information a
ruby method signature would have beyond the arity.

all ruby methods return an object.
all the parameters are objects.
The parameter names don't seem to have any meaning to the caller.
All methods can be called with a block (although it can be ignored,
but then any other parameters can be ignored as well).  So it seems to
me that theres no difference between
  def a(&block)
and
  def a

The only information that I can think of that arity doesn't give you
is in the case like:

   class C
       def a(*args)
       end

       def b(c=1)
       end
   end

both methods have an arity of -1 which indicates that there are no
required parameters, however they differ in that C#a will accept any
number of arguments, and C#b won't.


So just what should a Ruby method signature have?

-- 
Rick DeNatale

My blog on Ruby
http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/

In This Thread

Prev Next