[#5563] Non-overridable and non-redefinable methods — Eric Mahurin <eric_mahurin@...>

Lately, I've been thinking about the future of ruby

44 messages 2005/08/19
[#5564] Re: Non-overridable and non-redefinable methods — Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...> 2005/08/19

On 8/19/05, Eric Mahurin <eric_mahurin@yahoo.com> wrote:

[#5571] Re: Non-overridable and non-redefinable methods — Eric Mahurin <eric_mahurin@...> 2005/08/19

--- Austin Ziegler <halostatue@gmail.com> wrote:

[#5574] Re: Non-overridable and non-redefinable methods — TRANS <transfire@...> 2005/08/20

Just wanted to add a few things.

[#5581] Re: Non-overridable and non-redefinable methods — Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...> 2005/08/20

On 8/19/05, TRANS <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:

[#5583] Re: Non-overridable and non-redefinable methods — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2005/08/20

Hi --

[#5585] Re: Non-overridable and non-redefinable methods — Eric Mahurin <eric_mahurin@...> 2005/08/20

--- "David A. Black" <dblack@wobblini.net> wrote:

[#5609] Pathname#walk for traversing path nodes (patch) — ES <ruby-ml@...>

Here is a small addition to Pathname against 1.9, probably suited

20 messages 2005/08/22

Re: Pathname#walk for traversing path nodes (patch)

From: Tanaka Akira <akr@...17n.org>
Date: 2005-08-23 03:39:21 UTC
List: ruby-core #5642
In article <Pine.LNX.4.61.0508220433560.23684@dblack.wobblini.net>,
  "David A. Black" <dblack@wobblini.net> writes:

> Maybe "scan".

I think "scan" is acceptable.

I feel "subdir" of a pathname x/y/z means directories in x/y/z/*.
So "each_sub" and "each_subdir" is not good for me.

"descend" may represent the behaveor well in most case.
But it is not good if the pathname contains ".." (and ".").

Since the method itelf is not recursive, I don't like "recurse".

I feel "each_component" and "each_path" too generic.
-- 
Tanaka Akira

In This Thread