[#4858] Build fails on OSX Tiger 10.4 — noreply@...

Bugs item #1883, was opened at 2005-05-06 14:55

21 messages 2005/05/06
[#4862] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-1883 ] Build fails on OSX Tiger 10.4 — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2005/05/07

Hi,

[#4865] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-1883 ] Build fails on OSX Tiger 10.4 — Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby@...> 2005/05/07

[#4868] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-1883 ] Build fails on OSX Tiger 10.4 — nobu.nokada@... 2005/05/07

Hi,

[#5053] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-1883 ] Build fails on OSX Tiger 10.4 — Shugo Maeda <shugo@...> 2005/05/19

Hi,

[#5056] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-1883 ] Build fails on OSX Tiger 10.4 — Mark Hubbart <discordantus@...> 2005/05/19

On 5/19/05, Shugo Maeda <shugo@ruby-lang.org> wrote:

[#4874] - Need to reduce Ruby Sources to the Minimal — Ilias Lazaridis <ilias@...>

Hello all,

31 messages 2005/05/10
[#4879] Re: [THIN] - Need to reduce Ruby Sources to the Minimal — Pit Capitain <pit@...> 2005/05/11

Ilias Lazaridis schrieb:

[#4883] Re: [THIN] - Need to reduce Ruby Sources to the Minimal — Ilias Lazaridis <ilias@...> 2005/05/12

Pit Capitain wrote:

[#4884] Re: [THIN] - Need to reduce Ruby Sources to the Minimal — Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby@...> 2005/05/12

[#4888] Re: [THIN] - Need to reduce Ruby Sources to the Minimal — Ilias Lazaridis <ilias@...> 2005/05/12

Ryan Davis wrote:

[#4889] Re: [THIN] - Need to reduce Ruby Sources to the Minimal — ES <ruby-ml@...> 2005/05/12

[#4890] Re: [THIN] - Need to reduce Ruby Sources to the Minimal — Ilias Lazaridis <ilias@...> 2005/05/12

ES wrote:

[#4891] Re: [THIN] - Need to reduce Ruby Sources to the Minimal — Alexander Kellett <ruby-lists@...> 2005/05/12

On May 12, 2005, at 3:13 PM, Ilias Lazaridis wrote:

[#4911] Pointless argc check in Array#select — noreply@...

Patches item #1900, was opened at 2005-05-12 09:33

11 messages 2005/05/12

[#4919] - Hierarchical/Modular Directory Structure — Ilias Lazaridis <ilias@...>

The source-code structure should be simplified, lowering barriers for

20 messages 2005/05/12

Re: will callable objects be more general in Ruby 1.9?

From: Eric Mahurin <eric_mahurin@...>
Date: 2005-05-26 23:43:06 UTC
List: ruby-core #5107
--- Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> In message "Re: will callable objects be more general in Ruby
> 1.9?"
>     on Fri, 27 May 2005 02:34:21 +0900, Eric Mahurin
> <eric_mahurin@yahoo.com> writes:
> 
> |In Ruby 1.9 CVS, you can "call" local variables. i.e.
> |
> |f = {|*args,&block| puts(*args);block[]}
> |
> |f("hello","world!") {puts("bye")}
> |
> |The last statement is equivalent to:
> |
> |f.call("hello","world!") {puts("bye")}
> 
> |Any plans making these callable objects more general?
> 
> In fact, I am thinking reverting this "call" change.  It
> causes code
> incompatibility, and lacks some generality, as you've stated.
> 
> 							matz.


I was kind of looking forward to the further unification of
objects - all objects being callable like methods already are.

In terms of compatibility, I assume you are referring to the
fact that if you have a local variable f (callable or not), f()
will try to call it even if the method f exists (in 1.9).  I
like this new behavior (local variables always override), but
to preserve compatibility couldn't you just change the
priority? - f() would prefer calling method f over calling
local variable f.

Eric



		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/

In This Thread

Prev Next