[#3907] Obtaining mode information on an IO object — Jos Backus <jos@...>

The attached patch implements IO#mode. This method returns the mode the IO

17 messages 2004/12/06
[#3909] Re: [patch] Obtaining mode information on an IO object — nobu.nokada@... 2004/12/07

Hi,

[#3910] Re: [patch] Obtaining mode information on an IO object — Jos Backus <jos@...> 2004/12/07

On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 09:25:13AM +0900, nobu.nokada@softhome.net wrote:

[#3925] Re: [patch] Obtaining mode information on an IO object — James Britt <ruby@...> 2004/12/09

Jos Backus wrote:

[#4009] cgi.rb -- more GET/POST stuff — mde@...26.com

First of all, I think it would be great, as Eustaquio suggests, to

17 messages 2004/12/23
[#4016] Re: [PATCH] cgi.rb -- more GET/POST stuff — Francis Hwang <sera@...> 2004/12/24

GETs and POSTs are defined to be fairly different actions. I'd read

[#4027] Allowing custom number literal suffixes? — Florian Gro<florgro@...>

Moin!

35 messages 2004/12/27
[#4070] Re: Allowing custom number literal suffixes? — nobu.nokada@... 2005/01/02

Hi,

[#4072] Re: Allowing custom number literal suffixes? — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2005/01/02

[#4079] Re: Allowing custom number literal suffixes? — Florian Gro<florgro@...> 2005/01/03

Mathieu Bouchard wrote:

[#4081] Re: Allowing custom number literal suffixes? — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2005/01/03

[#4082] Re: Allowing custom number literal suffixes? — Florian Gro<florgro@...> 2005/01/03

Mathieu Bouchard wrote:

[#4084] Re: Allowing custom number literal suffixes? — Brent Roman <brent@...> 2005/01/04

I'm not sure I would advocate making Ruby's grammar even more

[#4086] Re: Allowing custom number literal suffixes? — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2005/01/04

[#4033] Garbage collection trouble — Christian Neukirchen <chneukirchen@...>

Hello,

13 messages 2004/12/27

Re: [patch] Obtaining mode information on an IO object

From: Jos Backus <jos@...>
Date: 2004-12-09 01:28:53 UTC
List: ruby-core #3926
On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 10:01:53AM +0900, James Britt wrote:
> What is "accmode" suppose to be indicate? "Access mode?"  If that's the 
> case, can it just be called "access_mode" ?
> 
> Or is there a requirement for consistency with some historical Unix 
> terseness?

Not at all. `access_mode' is even better imo. To be honest, I didn't think
about the name much, I was mostly focusing on the functionality.

-- 
Jos Backus                       _/  _/_/_/      Sunnyvale, CA
                                _/  _/   _/
                               _/  _/_/_/
                          _/  _/  _/    _/
jos at catnook.com        _/_/   _/_/_/          require 'std/disclaimer'

In This Thread