[#4479] Requesting addition to IRB (configurable standard output) — Sascha Ebach <se@...>

Hello,

13 messages 2005/02/24
[#4482] Re: Requesting addition to IRB (configurable standard output) — Sam Roberts <sroberts@...> 2005/02/25

Quoting se@digitale-wertschoepfung.de, on Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 01:22:34AM +0900:

[#4483] Re: Requesting addition to IRB (configurable standard output) — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net> 2005/02/25

On 24 Feb 2005, at 19:51, Sam Roberts wrote:

[#4488] Re: Requesting addition to IRB (configurable standard output) — Sam Roberts <sroberts@...> 2005/02/26

Quoting drbrain@segment7.net, on Sat, Feb 26, 2005 at 02:43:31AM +0900:

[#4489] Re: Requesting addition to IRB (configurable standard output) — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net> 2005/02/26

On 25 Feb 2005, at 16:03, Sam Roberts wrote:

Re: BUG: Struct.new(:a?).instance_methods

From: "Marrows, George A (GE Energy)" <george.marrows@...>
Date: 2005-02-09 17:17:10 UTC
List: ruby-core #4407
>But isn't it better to instead change the implementation so that a?= is
>allowed?... It would be also good to allow @foo? instance 
>variables. 

And if there's any chance of it, I'd really love to see x? local variables
too. Like Mathieu, I've been inclined not to use ? methods because of the
restrictions on the use of question marks with other identifiers.

>> ruby -ve "x? = 1; p x?"
ruby 1.8.2 (2004-07-29) [i386-mswin32]
-e:1: syntax error
x? = 1; p x?
    ^

Does anyone know what parsing issues stand in the way of these suggestions?
(I must admit I haven't looked, sorry...)

-- George

In This Thread

Prev Next