[#15359] Timeout::Error — Jeremy Thurgood <jerith@...>

Good day,

41 messages 2008/02/05
[#15366] Re: Timeout::Error — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net> 2008/02/06

On Feb 5, 2008, at 06:20 AM, Jeremy Thurgood wrote:

[#15370] Re: Timeout::Error — Jeremy Thurgood <jerith@...> 2008/02/06

Eric Hodel wrote:

[#15373] Re: Timeout::Error — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2008/02/06

Hi,

[#15374] Re: Timeout::Error — Jeremy Thurgood <jerith@...> 2008/02/06

Nobuyoshi Nakada wrote:

[#15412] Re: Timeout::Error — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2008/02/07

Hi,

[#15413] Re: Timeout::Error — Jeremy Thurgood <jerith@...> 2008/02/07

Nobuyoshi Nakada wrote:

[#15414] Re: Timeout::Error — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2008/02/07

Hi,

[#15360] reopen: can't change access mode from "w+" to "w"? — Sam Ruby <rubys@...>

I ran 'rake test' on test/spec [1], using

16 messages 2008/02/05
[#15369] Re: reopen: can't change access mode from "w+" to "w"? — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2008/02/06

Hi,

[#15389] STDIN encoding differs from default source file encoding — Dave Thomas <dave@...>

This seems strange:

21 messages 2008/02/06
[#15392] Re: STDIN encoding differs from default source file encoding — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/02/06

Hi,

[#15481] very bad character performance on ruby1.9 — "Eric Mahurin" <eric.mahurin@...>

I'd like to bring up the issue of how characters are represented in

16 messages 2008/02/10

[#15528] Test::Unit maintainer — Kouhei Sutou <kou@...>

Hi Nathaniel, Ryan,

22 messages 2008/02/13

[#15551] Proc#curry — ts <decoux@...>

21 messages 2008/02/14
[#15557] Re: [1.9] Proc#curry — David Flanagan <david@...> 2008/02/15

ts wrote:

[#15558] Re: [1.9] Proc#curry — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/02/15

Hi,

[#15560] Re: Proc#curry — Trans <transfire@...> 2008/02/15

[#15585] Ruby M17N meeting summary — Martin Duerst <duerst@...>

This is a rough translation of the Japanese meeting summary

19 messages 2008/02/18

[#15596] possible bug in regexp lexing — Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby@...>

current:

17 messages 2008/02/19

[#15678] Re: [ANN] MacRuby — "Rick DeNatale" <rick.denatale@...>

On 2/27/08, Laurent Sansonetti <laurent.sansonetti@gmail.com> wrote:

18 messages 2008/02/28
[#15679] Re: [ANN] MacRuby — "Laurent Sansonetti" <laurent.sansonetti@...> 2008/02/28

On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 6:33 AM, Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale@gmail.com> wrote:

[#15680] Re: [ANN] MacRuby — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/02/28

Hi,

[#15683] Re: [ANN] MacRuby — "Laurent Sansonetti" <laurent.sansonetti@...> 2008/02/28

On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 1:51 PM, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:

Re: [ANN] MacRuby

From: "Laurent Sansonetti" <laurent.sansonetti@...>
Date: 2008-02-28 23:32:57 UTC
List: ruby-core #15686
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 3:15 PM, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>  In message "Re: [ANN] MacRuby"
>
>     on Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:04:38 +0900, "Laurent Sansonetti" <laurent.sansonetti@gmail.com> writes:
>
>  |>  I still think having dedicated syntax for Objective-C call is better
>  |>  than overriding normal call.
>  |>
>  |>
>  |>   duck.foo: 1 bar: 2
>  |>
>  |>  or
>  |>
>  |>
>  |>   duck.foo: 1, bar: 2
>  |>
>  |>  maybe?  I am not sure if the parser allows this or not yet.
>  |>
>  |
>  |I have been thinking about this too, but I personally believe that it
>  |doesn't reveal very pretty when messaging Objective-C methods with
>  |only one argument.
>  |
>  |  duck.foo: 1
>
>  You can still map one-argument method to duck.foo(1) as it does now.
>

Yes, but it won't be consistent with multiple-argument calls then.

>  |But maybe we will switch to it soon, because it's more consistent with
>  |Objective-C (no potential ambiguities). But it doesn't feel very Ruby.
>
>  That is very important design decision.  Objective-C-ish calling or
>  Ruby-ish calling.  The latter makes program consistent, but the former
>  makes program obvious. Hmm.
>

Definitely! I have been thinking about this a lot, but I couldn't come
with something better than what's currently in MacRuby.

duck.foo               # may call foo
duck.foo(1)           # may call foo:
duck.foo(1, key:2) # may call foo:key:

There is also the problem of defining methods with keyed arguments. Currently:

def foo(x, key:y); end # will register foo:key:

Laurent

In This Thread