ruby-core

So, is it correct to assume that for language constructs that create built-in types like Range, Array, Hash etc that user-defined initialize methods are never called?

[#11549] Re: Proc initialize method not called under certain circumstances — "Berger, Daniel" <Daniel.Berger@...> 2007/06/28

> -----Original Message-----

[#11550] Re: Proc initialize method not called under certain circumstances — MenTaLguY <mental@...> 2007/06/28

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 06:24:48 +0900, "John Lam (CLR)" <jflam@microsoft.com> wrote:

[#11553] Re: Proc initialize method not called under certain circumstances — "Marcel Molina Jr." <marcel@...> 2007/06/28

On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 06:54:49AM +0900, MenTaLguY wrote:

[#11554] Re: Proc initialize method not called under certain circumstances — murphy <murphy@...> 2007/06/28

> ... for language constructs that create

[#11560] Re: Proc initialize method not called under certain circumstances — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/06/29

Hi,

[#11548] NilClass, TrueClass, FalseClass special cased for singleton classes? — "John Lam (CLR)" <jflam@...>

If you do:

3 messages 2007/06/28

[#11557] Re: NilClass, TrueClass, FalseClass special cased for singleton classes? — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2007/06/29

Hi,

[#11559] Re: NilClass, TrueClass, FalseClass special cased for singleton classes? — Joel VanderWerf <vjoel@...> 2007/06/29

John Lam (CLR) wrote:

[#11555] Name of Classes — =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Wolfgang_N=E1dasi-Donner?= <wonado@...>

Moin, moin!

2 messages 2007/06/28

[#11558] Re: Name of Classes — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2007/06/29

Moin,

[#11556] delete_if with destructive methods in block — Florian Gross <florgro@...>

Hi,

3 messages 2007/06/29

[#11561] Re: [BUG] delete_if with destructive methods in block — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2007/06/29

Hi,

[#11567] Re: delete_if with destructive methods in block — Florian Gross <florgro@...> 2007/06/30

That fixes it for me. I got no regressions from Rubinius' hash spec

[#11562] Can clear frozen array using initialize() — Florian Gross <florgro@...>

Hi,

2 messages 2007/06/29

[#11563] Re: [BUG] Can clear frozen array using initialize() — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/06/30

Hi,

Re: Error in ancestor?

From: "Robert Dober" <robert.dober@...>

Date: 2007-06-16 15:45:19 UTC

List: ruby-core #11480

On 6/16/07, Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/16/07, Robert Dober <robert.dober@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi list
> >
> > I just observed this (and it cost me quite some effort to debug my code :( )
> >
> > 515/15 > ruby -ve 'class << Class::new; puts self; puts ancestors.inspect end'
> > ruby 1.8.5 (2006-12-04 patchlevel 2) [i686-linux]
> > #<Class:#<Class:0xb7dfae50>>
> > [Class, Module, Object, Kernel]
> >
> >
> > this seems to be in contradiction with
> > http://www.ruby-doc.org/core/classes/Module.html#M001700
> > stating
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >   mod.ancestors → array
> >
> > Returns a list of modules included in mod (including mod itself).
> >                                                                  =============
> >
> >    module Mod
> >      include Math
> >      include Comparable
> >    end
> >
> >    Mod.ancestors    #=> [Mod, Comparable, Math]
> >    Math.ancestors   #=> [Math]
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Is this an error in doc or in behavior?
>
> ancestors is one of those methods, like class, which skip over
> singleton classes.
so you'd say it works as intended, I am not sure I like it because it
makes metaprogramming for singleton classes a tad more difficult.
However that is not the issue, the issue is "should this be
documented" or are we too much inside the guts of ruby?

Robert
-- 
You see things; and you say Why?
But I dream things that never were; and I say Why not?
-- George Bernard Shaw

Thread

Prev Next

In This Thread

Prev Next