[#16611] lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — Dave Thomas <dave@...>

This is one of those e-mails that I know from the start to be futile, =20=

148 messages 2008/05/01
[#16661] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2008/05/05

On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 12:26:47PM +0900, Dave Thomas wrote:

[#16662] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2008/05/05

Hi --

[#16663] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — ts <decoux@...> 2008/05/05

David A. Black wrote:

[#16664] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2008/05/05

Hi --

[#16682] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — ara howard <ara.t.howard@...> 2008/05/08

[#16684] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — Michael Neumann <mneumann@...> 2008/05/08

ara howard wrote:

[#16687] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2008/05/08

Hi --

[#16691] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — "ara.t.howard" <ara.t.howard@...> 2008/05/08

[#16692] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2008/05/08

Hi --

[#16695] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — "ara.t.howard" <ara.t.howard@...> 2008/05/08

[#16705] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — Evan Phoenix <evan@...> 2008/05/11

Not to throw the whole thread into a tizzy again, but why again is:

[#16708] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2008/05/11

Hi,

[#16720] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/05/11

Hi,

[#16721] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2008/05/12

Hi --

[#16722] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/05/12

Hi,

[#16723] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — Evan Phoenix <evan@...> 2008/05/12

[#16724] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/05/12

Hi,

[#16726] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — Nathan Weizenbaum <nex342@...> 2008/05/12

What about "fn" or "fun", for "function"?

[#16728] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/05/12

Hi,

[#16731] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — Evan Phoenix <evan@...> 2008/05/12

[#16732] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/05/12

Hi,

[#16759] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2008/05/13

Hi --

[#16766] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/05/14

Hi,

[#16784] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2008/05/18

Hi --

[#16795] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — Nate_Wiger@... 2008/05/19

On Wed, 14 May 2008, David A. Black wrote:

[#16797] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/05/19

Hi,

[#16798] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — "Christopher Gill" <gilltots@...> 2008/05/19

how about an uppercase lambda (instead of the usual lowercase one)

[#16802] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — "Suraj N. Kurapati" <sunaku@...> 2008/05/20

Christopher Gill wrote:

[#16843] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — "Suraj N. Kurapati" <sunaku@...> 2008/05/22

Suraj N. Kurapati wrote:

[#16846] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — "Berger, Daniel" <Daniel.Berger@...> 2008/05/22

=20

[#16854] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — "=?ISO-8859-2?Q?Rados=B3aw_Bu=B3at?=" <radek.bulat@...> 2008/05/22

T24gVGh1LCBNYXkgMjIsIDIwMDggYXQgNTozNyBQTSwgQmVyZ2VyLCBEYW5pZWwgPERhbmllbC5C

[#16857] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — "Jeremy McAnally" <jeremymcanally@...> 2008/05/23

RXZlbiB0aG91Z2ggSSBzZWUgdGhlIHVzZWZ1bG5lc3MsIHRoYXQncyBqdXN0IHVnbHkuCgotLUpl

[#16874] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — Nate_Wiger@... 2008/05/23

"Jeremy McAnally" <jeremymcanally@gmail.com> wrote on 05/22/2008 05:35:01=20

[#16875] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — "Nikolai Weibull" <now@...> 2008/05/23

2008/5/23 <Nate_Wiger@playstation.sony.com>:

[#16886] lambda with normal block syntax — "Eric Mahurin" <eric.mahurin@...>

This patch is an independent but related one to my previous one. It can be

64 messages 2008/05/25
[#16895] Re: [PATCH] lambda with normal block syntax — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2008/05/26

Hi,

[#16900] Re: [PATCH] lambda with normal block syntax — "Eric Mahurin" <eric.mahurin@...> 2008/05/26

On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 8:19 PM, Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@ruby-lang.org>

[#16901] Re: [PATCH] lambda with normal block syntax — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/05/26

Hi,

[#16902] Re: [PATCH] lambda with normal block syntax — "Suraj N. Kurapati" <sunaku@...> 2008/05/26

Hi,

[#16903] Re: [PATCH] lambda with normal block syntax — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/05/26

Hi,

[#16904] Re: [PATCH] lambda with normal block syntax — Dave Thomas <dave@...> 2008/05/26

[#16905] Re: [PATCH] lambda with normal block syntax — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/05/26

Hi,

[#16907] Re: [PATCH] lambda with normal block syntax — Dave Thomas <dave@...> 2008/05/26

[#16912] Re: [PATCH] lambda with normal block syntax — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/05/26

Hi,

[#16920] Re: [PATCH] lambda with normal block syntax — David Flanagan <david@...> 2008/05/26

If I may, here are two entries from the ChangeLog file:

[#16922] Re: [PATCH] lambda with normal block syntax — Dave Thomas <dave@...> 2008/05/26

[#16927] Re: [PATCH] lambda with normal block syntax — David Flanagan <david@...> 2008/05/26

Dave Thomas wrote:

[#16928] Re: [PATCH] lambda with normal block syntax — Dave Thomas <dave@...> 2008/05/26

[#16929] Re: [PATCH] lambda with normal block syntax — David Flanagan <david@...> 2008/05/26

Dave Thomas wrote:

[#16931] Re: [PATCH] lambda with normal block syntax — Dave Thomas <dave@...> 2008/05/27

[#16946] Re: [PATCH] lambda with normal block syntax — David Flanagan <david@...> 2008/05/27

Dave Thomas wrote:

[#16947] Re: [PATCH] lambda with normal block syntax — James Gray <james@...> 2008/05/27

On May 27, 2008, at 12:33 PM, David Flanagan wrote:

[#16949] Re: [PATCH] lambda with normal block syntax — David Flanagan <david@...> 2008/05/27

James Gray wrote:

Array.nitems replacement?

From: David Flanagan <david@...>
Date: 2008-05-28 18:03:01 UTC
List: ruby-core #16979
Array.nitems has just been removed from 1.9, and as near as I can make 
out from trying to read ruby-dev, Enumerable.count is suggested as a 
replacement.

I wonder if it is possible to make Enumerable.count a true work-alike 
replacement for nitems.

Currently, if count is invoked with no argument and no block, it returns 
  an Enumerator.  I'm not why this is useful and wonder if instead, it 
could return the number of non-nil elements just as nitems does in 1.8. 
  That would provide a clear porting path for 1.8 code that uses nitems: 
just change nitems to count.

Am I missing something?  Is there a use-case for an Enumerator returned 
by Enumerable#count?

	David Flanagan


In This Thread

Prev Next