[#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: Eero Saynatkari <ruby-ml@...>
Date: 2008-02-29 04:56:19 UTC
List: ruby-core #15694
On 2008.02.29 08:15, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> 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.

Actually, this would be a really great time to talk about trying to unify
the keyword argument syntax across implementations so that we do not have
to have that discussion later or contend with several variants. I know that
we are not at the 2.0 threshold yet, but obviously folks are starting to
get there.

In the particular case of MacRuby, I would go for implicitness unless
there is a reason that the programmer needs to know the difference. If
we can define an official syntax (and semantics) for keyword arguments
that also helps MacRuby, I think that would be the optimal solution.

I would probably prefer one of the Smalltalkish variants as the standard:

  duck foo: 1, bar: 2

This plausibly conforms to current method semantics:

  def duck(**kwargs)              # Implicit in the vcall
    sym, arg = kwargs.shift
    __send__ sym, arg, **kwargs
  end


--
Eero

In This Thread