[#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: 2005-05-27 14:50:26 UTC
List: ruby-core #5115

--- Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
> |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.
> 
> The priority idea is interesting.  My two concerns are:
> 
>   * it might make it hard for humans to understand what code
> does, by
>     introducing runtime ambiguity.
>   * I'm not sure if yacc allows that kind of priority
> resolution.

I would assume it would be workable because you already have to
deal with priority between local variables and methods - "xyz"
will prefer accessing local variable xyz over calling method
"xyz".

If this is still not wanted, another option would be to allow a
block to follow the [] operator (and be associated with it).  I
think this is a much smaller change to the language.  This way
you could do something like this:

f = {|*args,&block|...}

f["hello","world"] {puts("bye")}

which has the same conciseness as:

f("hello","world") {puts("bye")}

and allows "f" to be an arbitrary object expression.  The main
downside is that the [] is necessary so that you can't say:

f {puts("bye")}



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

In This Thread