[#2529] concerns about Proc,lambda,block — "David A. Black" <dblack@...>

Hi --

39 messages 2004/03/01
[#2531] Re: concerns about Proc,lambda,block — ts <decoux@...> 2004/03/01

>>>>> "D" == David A Black <dblack@wobblini.net> writes:

[#2533] Re: concerns about Proc,lambda,block — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2004/03/01

Hi --

[#2537] Re: concerns about Proc,lambda,block — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2004/03/01

Hi,

[#2542] Re: concerns about Proc,lambda,block — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2004/03/02

[#2545] Re: concerns about Proc,lambda,block — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2004/03/02

Hi,

[#2550] Re: concerns about Proc,lambda,block — Mauricio Fern疣dez <batsman.geo@...> 2004/03/03

On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 07:51:10AM +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#2703] Proposed patch to add SSL support to net/pop.rb — Daniel Hobe <daniel@...>

This patch adds support to Net::POP for doing POP over SSL. Modeled on how

19 messages 2004/03/27
[#2704] Re: Proposed patch to add SSL support to net/pop.rb — Daniel Hobe <daniel@...> 2004/03/27

This is v2 of the patch. Cleaned up a bit and added some more docs.

[#2707] Re: Proposed patch to add SSL support to net/pop.rb — Daniel Hobe <daniel@...> 2004/03/28

v3 of the patch:

[#2721] Re: Proposed patch to add SSL support to net/pop.rb — Minero Aoki <aamine@...> 2004/03/30

Hi,

Re: concerns about Proc,lambda,block

From: Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...>
Date: 2004-03-03 16:25:44 UTC
List: ruby-core #2554
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004, Austin Ziegler wrote:

> I disagree with what you have suggested about Class/Module. I don't think
> that this is a harmful distinction, and actually makes the language easier
> to use. Without the Class/Module distinction, then there's little to
> distinguish Ruby from languages which have multiple inheritance; I prefer
> the conceptual clarity that mix-ins provide.

Well, I'm not of those who believe Ruby is not a multiple-inheritance
language; and I don't quite understand the urge to deny the existence of
its multiple-inheritance features. (such as "super" supporting
backtracking, as borrowed from Lisp)

About the conceptual clarity that Ruby's modules/#include bring, well,
I've tried explaining it to some computer scientists, and they try to make
sense of it, while they pause with a blank stare, and after a while they
yell "WHY THE HELL???" with a distressed expression on their faces...
which is roughly the same reaction I get from trying to explain
proc/block/call/yield/& distinctions to them.

________________________________________________________________
Mathieu Bouchard                       http://artengine.ca/matju


In This Thread