[#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: Duck typing chapter

From: Dave Thomas <dave@...>
Date: 2004-03-05 23:46:05 UTC
List: ruby-core #2597
On Mar 5, 2004, at 15:04, Chad Fowler wrote:

> #    http://www.pragmaticprogrammer.com/extracts/ducktyping.pdf
>

> It's just personal opinion, but I felt like you spent a little more 
> energy
> justifying/selling Ruby's typing philosophy at the beginning.  You also
> pit Ruby's philosophy against that of the Java/C# school.  I agree with
> the comments you've made, but I wonder if it's beneficial to bring out
> this conflict explicitly.  It almost reads like you're having an 
> argument
> with the reader, based on what you feel their reaction will be.  It 
> seemed
> a little overly confrontational.  Others may disagree, though.
>
> When you go into to_int and to_str, I felt a little fuzzy when you 
> first
> mentioned that Roman shouldn't implement to_str.  You cleared it up in 
> the
> following example, but at first I felt like you were moving on, and I
> didn't feel satisfied that you were going to address this in more 
> detail.
> It might just be a personal experience that others won't repeat, but if
> not, I'd say there is a subtle issue with the rhythm in this section.


If you want to look at it again, I've updated it in light of your 
comments

Cheers

Dave


In This Thread