[#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: Chad Fowler <chad@...>
Date: 2004-03-06 16:42:40 UTC
List: ruby-core #2602
On Mar 5, 2004, at 6:46 PM, Dave Thomas wrote:

>
> On Mar 5, 2004, at 15:04, Chad Fowler wrote:
>
>
> If you want to look at it again, I've updated it in light of your 
> comments
>
> Cheers
>
> Dave
>
>

Thanks, Dave.  I think the tone is much less confrontational now.  
Nicely done.


I forgot to mention one nitpick in the last email.  "Even quite large 
Ruby programs run fine for weeks at a time..." sounds kind of sad.  
"Even quite large..." indicates that Ruby programs get nasty when they 
get big.  I know the point of the sentence is to refute this, but it 
sounds suspicious.  And, "weeks at a time" doesn't sound good to me.  
I'd rather hear "months" or "years at a time", but it might be better 
to leave the unit of measure off altogether.  "Weeks" sounds to me like 
the program is going to crash after 4 or 5 weeks. :)

Thanks,
Chad


In This Thread