[#4595] New block syntax — Daniel Amelang <daniel.amelang@...>

I'm really sorry if this isn't the place to talk about this. I've

25 messages 2005/03/21
[#4606] Re: New block syntax — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2005/03/21

Hi --

[#4629] Re: New block syntax — "Sean E. Russell" <ser@...> 2005/03/30

On Monday 21 March 2005 16:17, David A. Black wrote:

[#4648] about REXML::Encoding — speakillof <speakillof@...>

Hi.

15 messages 2005/03/31
[#4659] Re: about REXML::Encoding — "Sean E. Russell" <ser@...> 2005/04/04

On Thursday 31 March 2005 09:44, speakillof wrote:

Re: Integer.odd?/.even?

From: "Berger, Daniel" <Daniel.Berger@...>
Date: 2005-03-04 18:01:17 UTC
List: ruby-core #4515
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bertram Scharpf [mailto:lists@bertram-scharpf.de] 

> In my eyes, a `require' call is a bit much for that.
> 
> Bertram

If it were *just* for that, yes.  I have this sneaking suspicion there
are some folks out there who would like to add their pet functions to
Integer.  Lumping them all into a single pure Ruby library is much
easier and doesn't expand the underlying C code base, which would be
more difficult to maintain.

This isn't without precedent in Ruby, btw.  Consider "date" and
"ftools", for example, which add extra functionality to existing
classes.

My suggestion would be to put a call out for all the functions folks
would like to see added to the Integer class.  If there are more than a
few, create an "integer" project (on RubyForge perhaps) and put them all
in there.  If not, well, we can revisit the issue. :)

Regards,

Dan


In This Thread

Prev Next