[#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: "Berger, Daniel" <Daniel.Berger@...>
Date: 2005-08-29 21:39:03 UTC
List: ruby-core #5707
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tanaka Akira [mailto:akr@m17n.org] 
> Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2005 10:48 AM
> To: ruby-core@ruby-lang.org
> Subject: Re: Pathname#walk for traversing path nodes (patch)
> 
> 
> 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

I can't remember - was it decided that the root directory should be
considered a separate element?  In other words will Pathname#ascend for
"/foo/bar" yield "/", "/foo", "/foo/bar" or just "/foo", "/foo/bar"?

Thanks.

Dan


In This Thread

Prev Next