[#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: 2005-08-28 16:48:23 UTC
List: ruby-core #5701
In article <430C95ED.7060500@pobox.com>,
  mathew <meta@pobox.com> writes:

> I'd like to suggest "descend", because it's really descending into the 
> path provided. The case where the path contains ".." is exceptional; I 
> imagine most real uses of the method won't be on ".." paths. And even 
> then, it's arguable that you're still descending into the *path*, it's 
> just that the path is relative and moves up the directory tree.

Now I think "descend" (and "ascend") is acceptable.  So they are
implemented.
-- 
Tanaka Akira

In This Thread

Prev Next