[#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: Hash#delete - inconsistent with docs

From: "daz" <dooby@...10.karoo.co.uk>
Date: 2004-12-22 02:01:55 UTC
List: ruby-core #3998
----- Original Message -----
From: "David A. Black" <dblack@wobblini.net>
To: <ruby-core@ruby-lang.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 1:34 PM
Subject: Re: Hash#delete - inconsistent with docs


> Hi --
>
> On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, Charles Mills wrote:
>
> > irb(main):001:0> h = Hash.new("go fish")
> > => {}
> > irb(main):002:0> h.delete("foo")
> > => nil
> >
> > $ ri Hash#delete
> > ------------------------------------------------------------ Hash#delete
> >     hsh.delete(key)                   => value
> >     hsh.delete(key) {| key | block }  => value
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >     Deletes and returns a key-value pair from hsh whose key is equal
> >     to key. If the key is not found, returns the default value. If the
> >     optional code block is given and the key is not found, pass in the
> >     key and return the result of block.
> >
> >        h = { "a" => 100, "b" => 200 }
> >        h.delete("a")                              #=> 100
> >        h.delete("z")                              #=> nil
> >        h.delete("z") { |el| "#{el} not found" }   #=> "z not found"
> >
> >
> > I expected
> >> h.delete("foo") #=> "go fish"
> > or for the docs to say 'If the key is not found, returns nil'.
>
> That behavior seems to have changed since 1.6.8:
>
>    ruby -ve 'h=Hash.new("x"); h[1]=2; p h.delete("y"); p h.delete(1)'
>    ruby 1.6.8 (2002-12-24) [i686-linux]
>    "x"
>    2
>
> though I can't find it mentioned in the ChangeLog.  (Maybe that's why
> the doc wasn't updated.)
>
>
> David
>

AFAICS, this was changed 3 years ago in rev1.58 ...
http://www.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/ruby/hash.c#rev1.58

DIFF (around lines 395/414)
http://www.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/ruby/hash.c.diff?r1=1.57;r2=1.58;f=h

I posted on c.l.ruby in Feb 2003 but the message didn't go to ruby-talk ...
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.lang.ruby/browse_thread/thread/6a80fe2c76647f34

I added a short prompt on the Wiki for PragDave, here ...
http://www.rubygarden.org/ruby?ProgrammingRubyTwo/Hash


daz




____________________________________________________________________________
This email and all attachments have been electronically scanned by Kingston
Communications' email Anti-Virus service and no known viruses were detected.
____________________________________________________________________________



In This Thread

Prev Next