[#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: "David A. Black" <dblack@...>
Date: 2005-08-23 13:45:27 UTC
List: ruby-core #5647
Hi --

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, daz wrote:

>
> David A. Black
>
>>
>> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, daz wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Tanaka Akira wrote:
>>>
>>>> David A. Black writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Maybe "scan".
>>>>
>>>
>>> I've followed the recent protests that a Pathname is not
>>> a String and, here, the name of a String method is
>>> suggested.  An understanding of the operation of either
>>> #scan method would provide no clue to the operation of
>>> the other.
>>> This, IMHO, is what leads to dilution of meaning,
>>> then dilution of understanding.  I object strongly.
>>
>> I don't think any given class can monopolize a method name, unless
>> there's a really close connection.  (And in that case it would be
>> monopolization by default, since no other objects would want the
>> name.)
>>
>
> Perhaps - but I think the name "scan" should be reserved for
> methods which are doing some kind of scanning (i.e. discovery)
> rather that iterating over components which are invariant and
> well understood by the class.

My first choice would actually be split, but that's already in use for
this class.


David

-- 
David A. Black
dblack@wobblini.net

In This Thread