[#5737] returning strings from methods/instance_methods — TRANS <transfire@...>

I was just wondering why with #methods and #instance_methods, it was

11 messages 2005/09/08

[#5796] proposed attr writer patch — Daniel Berger <Daniel.Berger@...>

Hi all,

18 messages 2005/09/16

[#5798] Makefile error in OpenSLL extension (on Windows) — noreply@...

Bugs item #2472, was opened at 2005-09-16 18:56

11 messages 2005/09/17
[#5800] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-2472 ] Makefile error in OpenSLL extension (on Windows) — nobu.nokada@... 2005/09/17

Hi,

[#5851] Re: RubyGems in Ruby HEAD — Paul van Tilburg <paul@...>

Hi all,

34 messages 2005/09/21
[#5867] Re: RubyGems in Ruby HEAD — mathew <meta@...> 2005/09/21

Paul van Tilburg wrote:

[#5870] Re: RubyGems in Ruby HEAD — Marc Dequènes (Duck) <Duck@...> 2005/09/21

[#5920] Re: RubyGems in Ruby HEAD — mathew <meta@...> 2005/09/22

Marc Dequ竪nes (Duck) wrote:

[#5926] Re: RubyGems in Ruby HEAD — Pascal Terjan <pterjan@...> 2005/09/23

On 9/22/05, mathew <meta@pobox.com> wrote:

[#5931] Re: RubyGems in Ruby HEAD — Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...> 2005/09/23

On 9/23/05, Pascal Terjan <pterjan@gmail.com> wrote:

[#5898] Delegate and Forwardable Documentation — James Edward Gray II <james@...>

I've tried to send these files through a couple of times now with

17 messages 2005/09/22
[#5911] Re: Delegate and Forwardable Documentation — James Edward Gray II <james@...> 2005/09/22

On Sep 22, 2005, at 9:02 AM, James Edward Gray II wrote:

[#5924] Re: Delegate and Forwardable Documentation — James Edward Gray II <james@...> 2005/09/23

On Sep 22, 2005, at 11:53 AM, James Edward Gray II wrote:

[#5941] Re: Delegate and Forwardable Documentation — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2005/09/23

Hi,

[#5942] Re: Delegate and Forwardable Documentation — James Edward Gray II <james@...> 2005/09/23

On Sep 23, 2005, at 10:54 AM, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#5947] Re: Delegate and Forwardable Documentation — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2005/09/23

Hi,

[#5921] Mutually dependent libs double loading. — TRANS <transfire@...>

I'm on Ruby 1.8.2.

14 messages 2005/09/23
[#5923] Re: Mutually dependent libs double loading. — Florian Gro<florgro@...> 2005/09/23

TRANS wrote:

[#5985] Finally an answer to my RubyGems question and some small suggestions — TRANS <transfire@...>

I appreciate those that attempted to offer me some info on this issue.

9 messages 2005/09/26

[#6001] Require Namepaces and RubyGems' effect on LoadPath problem — TRANS <transfire@...>

I've added namespaces to require. Works like this:

94 messages 2005/09/26
[#6002] Re: Require Namepaces and RubyGems' effect on LoadPath problem — Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...> 2005/09/26

On 9/26/05, TRANS <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:

[#6003] Re: Require Namepaces and RubyGems' effect on LoadPath problem — TRANS <transfire@...> 2005/09/26

On 9/26/05, Austin Ziegler <halostatue@gmail.com> wrote:

[#6005] Re: Require Namepaces and RubyGems' effect on LoadPath problem — Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...> 2005/09/26

On 9/26/05, TRANS <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:

[#6007] gems is a language change, not a pkging system (Re: Require Namepaces and RubyGems' effect on LoadPath problem) — Sam Roberts <sroberts@...> 2005/09/26

Quoting halostatue@gmail.com, on Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 06:02:07AM +0900:

[#6013] Re: gems is a language change, not a pkging system (Re: Require Namepaces and RubyGems' effect on LoadPath problem) — Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...> 2005/09/27

On 9/26/05, Sam Roberts <sroberts@uniserve.com> wrote:

[#6014] Re: gems is a language change, not a pkging system — Sam Roberts <sroberts@...> 2005/09/27

Quoting halostatue@gmail.com, on Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 10:29:17AM +0900:

[#6015] Re: gems is a language change, not a pkging system — James Edward Gray II <james@...> 2005/09/27

On Sep 26, 2005, at 8:54 PM, Sam Roberts wrote:

[#6016] Re: gems is a language change, not a pkging system — Sam Roberts <sroberts@...> 2005/09/27

Quoting james@grayproductions.net, on Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 11:06:01AM +0900:

[#6018] Re: gems is a language change, not a pkging system — Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...> 2005/09/27

On 9/26/05, Sam Roberts <sroberts@uniserve.com> wrote:

[#6019] Re: gems is a language change, not a pkging system — Sam Roberts <sroberts@...> 2005/09/27

Quoting halostatue@gmail.com, on Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 11:49:14AM +0900:

[#6024] Re: gems is a language change, not a pkging system — Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...> 2005/09/27

On 9/27/05, Sam Roberts <sroberts@uniserve.com> wrote:

[#6025] Re: gems is a language change, not a pkging system — Ralph Amissah <ralph.amissah@...> 2005/09/27

> Right now, they're watching people who have pretty much sat on the side

[#6026] Re: gems is a language change, not a pkging system — Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...> 2005/09/27

On 9/27/05, Ralph Amissah <ralph.amissah@gmail.com> wrote:

[#6043] Re: gems is a language change, not a pkging system — Ralph Amissah <ralph.amissah@...> 2005/09/28

I'll greatly weaken my post, and give everyone the opportunity to head me

[#6044] Re: gems is a language change, not a pkging system — Hugh Sasse <hgs@...> 2005/09/28

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005, Ralph Amissah wrote:

[#6073] Re: gems is a language change, not a pkging system — Mauricio Fern疣dez <mfp@...> 2005/09/28

Hello,

[#6074] Re: gems is a language change, not a pkging system — Jim Weirich <jim@...> 2005/09/29

On Wednesday 28 September 2005 07:35 pm, Mauricio Fern疣dez wrote:

[#6017] Re: gems is a language change, not a pkging system — Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...> 2005/09/27

On 9/26/05, Sam Roberts <sroberts@uniserve.com> wrote:

[#6046] Re: gems is a language change, not a pkging system — "Sean E. Russell" <ser@...> 2005/09/28

On Monday 26 September 2005 22:41, Austin Ziegler wrote:

[#6050] Re: gems is a language change, not a pkging system — Hugh Sasse <hgs@...> 2005/09/28

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005, Sean E. Russell wrote:

[#6207] Re: gems is a language change, not a pkging system — "Sean E. Russell" <ser@...> 2005/10/10

On Wednesday 28 September 2005 08:54, Hugh Sasse wrote:

[#6045] Re: gems is a language change, not a pkging system (Re: Require Namepaces and RubyGems' effect on LoadPath problem) — "Sean E. Russell" <ser@...> 2005/09/28

On Monday 26 September 2005 21:29, Austin Ziegler wrote:

[#6048] Re: gems is a language change, not a pkging system (Re: Require Namepaces and RubyGems' effect on LoadPath problem) — Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...> 2005/09/28

On 9/28/05, Sean E. Russell <ser@germane-software.com> wrote:

[#6059] Re: gems is a language change, not a pkging system (Re: Require Namepaces and RubyGems' effect on LoadPath problem) — Dominique Brezinski <dominique.brezinski@...> 2005/09/28

On 9/28/05, Austin Ziegler <halostatue@gmail.com> wrote:

[#6061] Re: gems is a language change, not a pkging system (Re: Require Namepaces and RubyGems' effect on LoadPath problem) — Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...> 2005/09/28

On 9/28/05, Dominique Brezinski <dominique.brezinski@gmail.com> wrote:

[#6062] Re: gems is a language change, not a pkging system (Re: Require Namepaces and RubyGems' effect on LoadPath problem) — Dominique Brezinski <dominique.brezinski@...> 2005/09/28

For what it is worth, I live life behind an authenticated proxy, so I

[#6099] Re: gems is a language change, not a pkging system (Re: Require Namepaces and RubyGems' effect on LoadPath problem) — "Sean E. Russell" <ser@...> 2005/09/30

On Wednesday 28 September 2005 08:43, Austin Ziegler wrote:

[#6009] Re: ruby 1.8.3 (2005-09-21) [i486-linux] sisu segfault — Ralph Amissah <ralph.amissah@...>

(i) correction, segfault is with official ruby 1.8.3 (2005-09-21), not

21 messages 2005/09/27
[#6010] Fwd: ruby 1.8.3 (2005-09-21) [i486-linux] sisu segfault — Ralph Amissah <ralph.amissah@...> 2005/09/27

[sorry for duplicate post]

[#6079] Re: Fwd: ruby 1.8.3 (2005-09-21) [i486-linux] sisu segfault — ts <decoux@...> 2005/09/29

>>>>> "R" == Ralph Amissah <ralph.amissah@gmail.com> writes:

[#6081] Re: Fwd: ruby 1.8.3 (2005-09-21) [i486-linux] sisu segfault — ts <decoux@...> 2005/09/29

>>>>> "t" == ts <decoux@moulon.inra.fr> writes:

[#6082] Re: Fwd: ruby 1.8.3 (2005-09-21) [i486-linux] sisu segfault — Tanaka Akira <akr@...17n.org> 2005/09/29

In article <200509291419.j8TEJYid015419@moulon.inra.fr>,

Re: returning strings from methods/instance_methods

From: Florian Gro<florgro@...>
Date: 2005-09-08 15:49:21 UTC
List: ruby-core #5739
TRANS wrote:

> I was just wondering why with #methods and #instance_methods, it was
> decided to return the names as strings and not symobols? I'm working
> on something right now that uses those, building a hash, and it just
> stikes me as odd when in so many cases the common idiom is to use a
> symbol, (eg. attr :x, define_method :x, etc.) Arn't symbols
> substantially lighter weight, which is why we generally have them at
> all?

Take this with a grain of salt as I was not around back then:

I think Ruby used to return a Fixnum for :foo in the past meaning that 
#methods and #instance_methods had the choice of returning a bunch of 
numbers that have no meaning for humans or to return strings.

I guess there wasn't a good enough reason for converting it to symbols 
when the Symbol class was introduced and thus it was decided that 
breaking backwards compatibility would not be a good idea.

I'm inferring that Ruby once used Fixnums instead of Symbols because of 
this:

irb(main):010:0> 5.send(:+.to_i, 5)
(irb):10: warning: do not use Fixnums as Symbols
=> 10

Feel free to correct me and/or add more information. I'm personally 
interested in Ruby's past so corrections or additions are very welcome.


In This Thread