[#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: Christian Neukirchen <chneukirchen@...>
Date: 2005-02-09 20:04:27 UTC
List: ruby-core #4408
Mathieu Bouchard <matju@sympatico.ca> writes:

> 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. All
> those things are possible, it's just that the parser puts unnecessary
> complications in what's allowed and what's not.
>
> I say that because currently the "?" suffix is much less useful than it
> could be. In fact, if I really insisted on using a suffix for predicates
> (boolean functions) I'd use the letter p instead (for example), because at
> least it can be used uniformly in any context.
>
> In short, according to POLS (Principle of Least Segregation), I would like
> the visible minority of ?-names to be treated with equality.

+= 1

Wanting this for a long time...

-- 
Christian Neukirchen  <chneukirchen@gmail.com>  http://chneukirchen.org

In This Thread

Prev Next