[#3358] Fwd: fastcgi & continuations (Re: Idea: Webshare) — Patrick May <patrick@...>
Hello,
8 messages
2004/09/09
[#3359] Re: Fwd: fastcgi & continuations (Re: Idea: Webshare)
— Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net>
2004/09/09
Patrick May (patrick@hexane.org) wrote:
[#3419] Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0 — Andrew Walrond <andrew@...>
Hello list,
19 messages
2004/09/17
[#3422] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— ts <decoux@...>
2004/09/17
>>>>> "A" == Andrew Walrond <andrew@walrond.org> writes:
[#3423] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— Andrew Walrond <andrew@...>
2004/09/17
On Friday 17 Sep 2004 12:01, ts wrote:
[#3424] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— ts <decoux@...>
2004/09/17
>>>>> "A" == Andrew Walrond <andrew@walrond.org> writes:
[#3425] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— Andrew Walrond <andrew@...>
2004/09/17
On Friday 17 Sep 2004 12:37, ts wrote:
[#3426] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— ts <decoux@...>
2004/09/17
>>>>> "A" == Andrew Walrond <andrew@walrond.org> writes:
[#3428] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— Andrew Walrond <andrew@...>
2004/09/17
On Friday 17 Sep 2004 13:05, ts wrote:
[#3429] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— ts <decoux@...>
2004/09/17
>>>>> "A" == Andrew Walrond <andrew@walrond.org> writes:
[#3430] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— Andrew Walrond <andrew@...>
2004/09/17
On Friday 17 Sep 2004 13:30, ts wrote:
[#3431] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— ts <decoux@...>
2004/09/17
>>>>> "A" == Andrew Walrond <andrew@walrond.org> writes:
[#3432] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— Andrew Walrond <andrew@...>
2004/09/17
On Friday 17 Sep 2004 13:50, ts wrote:
[#3433] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— Andrew Walrond <andrew@...>
2004/09/17
There is a minor flaw in my analysis toward the end; ignore previous email
[#3434] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— Andrew Walrond <andrew@...>
2004/09/17
On Friday 17 Sep 2004 13:50, ts wrote:
[#3437] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>
2004/09/17
Hi,
Re: "destructiveness" of delete
From:
"Sean E. Russell" <ser@...>
Date:
2004-09-09 12:51:05 UTC
List:
ruby-core #3365
On Wednesday 01 September 2004 21:03, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote: > There were no big reason than "they had different origins" as I stated > before. Probably it was wrong naming, I admit. I'm afraid that > unifiying behavior (to either direction) would cause serious problems > more than it would solve. Any realistic idea, anyone? Add Array#delete!, deprecate Array#delete, and in the next major version upgrade, change the behavior so that #delete returns an array, and the original is unmodified (Array#delete -> Array#clone#delete! ; self). But I agree with David that having methods by the same name with different behaviors is confusing. It was brilliant of you to use "?" to illustrate queries and "!" to differentiate state-changing methods from methods that return a *copy* of an object with different state; it seems a shame to not be consistent in the core classes in using them. -- ### SER ### Deutsch|Esperanto|Francaise|Linux|XML|Java|Ruby|Aikido ### http://www.germane-software.com/~ser jabber.com:ser ICQ:83578737 ### GPG: http://www.germane-software.com/~ser/Security/ser_public.gpg