[#4522] Undefined Errno::EPROTO and the like raises NameError — "Florian Frank" <flori@...>
Hi,
[#4533] giving acces readline to rl_line_buffer — "Cs. Henk" <csaba-ml@...>
Hi!
[#4548] Ruby 1.8.2 array of hash entries functions incorrectly — noreply@...
Bugs item #1613, was opened at 2005-03-09 19:49
[#4561] rb_reg_quote weirdness — Nikolai Weibull <mailing-lists.ruby-core@...>
(Two weirdnesses in one day.)
Hi,
[#4567] Immutable Ropes — Nikolai Weibull <mailing-lists.ruby-core@...>
Note how I didn't write "Immutable Strings" in the subject.
[#4575] Allowing "?" in struct members — "Berger, Daniel" <Daniel.Berger@...>
Hi all,
[#4587] 0**0==1? — Bertram Scharpf <lists@...>
Hi,
[#4595] New block syntax — Daniel Amelang <daniel.amelang@...>
I'm really sorry if this isn't the place to talk about this. I've
Daniel Amelang wrote:
Hi --
On Monday 21 March 2005 16:17, David A. Black wrote:
Hi --
Hey David, I think that we've had some misunderstandings due to
Hi --
On Wednesday 30 March 2005 20:55, David A. Black wrote:
On Sunday 20 March 2005 21:31, Daniel Amelang wrote:
[#4601] Re: New block syntax — "Berger, Daniel" <Daniel.Berger@...>
> -----Original Message-----
[#4611] want_object? - possible? — "Berger, Daniel" <Daniel.Berger@...>
Hi all,
[#4619] Re: want_object? - possible? — Daniel Berger <djberg96@...>
--- nobu.nokada@softhome.net wrote:
Hi --
On 3/24/05, David A. Black <dblack@wobblini.net> wrote:
Hi --
On 4/14/05, David A. Black <dblack@wobblini.net> wrote:
On 14 Apr 2005, at 22:20, Mark Hubbart wrote:
On 4/15/05, Eric Hodel <drbrain@segment7.net> wrote:
[#4622] tempfile.rb — Tilman Sauerbeck <tilman@...>
Hi,
[#4648] about REXML::Encoding — speakillof <speakillof@...>
Hi.
On Thursday 31 March 2005 09:44, speakillof wrote:
Hi.
I've tested, applied, and committed your Encoding patch, Nobu.
Hi,
Re: New block syntax
On Monday 21 March 2005 16:17, David A. Black wrote:
> What about this:
>
> def name(x); end
>
> [name:'bill'] # {:name => 'bill'} or [name('bill')] ?
irb(main):001:0> def name(x); end
=> nil
irb(main):002:0> [name:5]
SyntaxError: compile error
(irb):2: syntax error
[name:5]
^
from (irb):2
irb(main):003:0> name:5
SyntaxError: compile error
(irb):3: syntax error
from (irb):3
Where are you seeing a problem?
> Actually it sounds like less flexibility and more fragility. For
> example, I suspect the answer to my questions above would be: commas
> would not be allowed as hash key/value separators any more, and
Yeah, that's what he proposed; personally, I don't much mind it, as I never
use the comma-separated constructor, but it *is* a significant syntax change.
> whitespace would be required before a symbol argument to a method, and
Isn't it already? Whitespace, or a token character, is required before a
symbol argument, AFAIK. Are you looking at a different version of Ruby than
I am?
EG:
[name(:foo)]
[name :foo] # [name(:foo)]
['name': 'foo'] # { 'name' => 'foo' }
[name: 'foo'] # ditto
Anti-symbols :-)
> so on. So writing a Hash correctly would involved threading a much
> narrower needle.
Any reduction of typing does this, but that isn't an argument for having a
terse syntax. Ruby has always played it fast and loose. This syntax isn't
more obfuscated; it is still clear what is being meant with:
h = [ one: 'me', two: 'you', something: 'else' ]
Well, at least, to me this seems pretty natural, and much easier to type than
hashes defined with =>, and much clearer than hashes defined with ','. With
long comma-separated hashes, it can be difficult to associate keys with
values; this syntax is more clear.
--
--- SER
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents,
more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some
great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach
their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." - H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)