[#8976] Insecure warnings on sticky-bit directories — "Laurent Sansonetti" <laurent.sansonetti@...>
Hi,
[#8978] Inheritance and Autorunner: Default_test causes a problem — <noreply@...>
Bugs item #5990, was opened at 2006-10-02 10:05
Hi,
[#8997] Re: [ruby-cvs:18323] ruby: * eval.c (splat_value): use "to_splat" instead of "to_ary" to — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...>
On Tue, 3 Oct 2006, matz wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Hi,
Hi --
Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Hi,
Hi --
Hi,
Hi --
Hi,
Hi --
On Oct 9, 2006, at 10:19 AM, dblack@wobblini.net wrote:
On 2006.10.10 00:31, James Edward Gray II wrote:
On Oct 9, 2006, at 11:50 AM, Eero Saynatkari wrote:
Hi --
dblack@wobblini.net wrote:
Thomas Enebo wrote:
Hi --
Hi --
Hi,
Hi --
Hi,
On 10/10/06, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
Hi,
On Oct 10, 2006, at 8:43 AM, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
From: <dblack@wobblini.net>
Hi --
> to_a was too general. All enumerable objects (and even
Brown, Warren wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
[#8999] making FileUtils.rm_rf robust: is anyone interested? — Jim Meyering <list+ruby@...>
Hello,
Hi,
"Nobuyoshi Nakada" <nobu@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
[#9014] C#'s ?? Operator — "Nikolai Weibull" <now@...>
Hi!
[#9021] argument passing bug — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...>
[#9024] — Shashank Date <sdate@...>
Hi All,
[#9077] how to create a NODE_ARGSPUSH? — Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby@...>
Is it possible for plain ruby code to create a NODE_ARGSPUSH? It
[#9104] Loop over array.delete breaks at first hit — <noreply@...>
Bugs item #6090, was opened at 2006-10-10 22:33
Hi,
[#9119] What about 'splay'? — dblack@...
Hi --
On 2006.10.12 02:32, dblack@wobblini.net wrote:
On Wednesday 11 October 2006 13:55, Eero Saynatkari wrote:
Hi --
dblack@wobblini.net wrote:
Hi --
On 2006.10.12 03:36, Sean Russell wrote:
On 10/11/06, dblack@wobblini.net <dblack@wobblini.net> wrote:
[#9152] regular expressions tainting? — hadmut@... (Hadmut Danisch)
Hi,
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 01:01:36PM +0900, Nobuyoshi Nakada wrote:
It's worse:
Hi,
On Oct 15, 2006, at 1:20 AM, Hadmut Danisch wrote:
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 05:33:16PM +0900, Eric Hodel wrote:
[#9158] Module#class_variable_defined? — Mauricio Fernandez <mfp@...>
[#9188] Symbol < String in Ruby > 1.8 — dblack@...
Hi --
Hi
Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
Jim Weirich wrote:
On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 05:06:02AM +0900, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
Hi,
Quoting matz@ruby-lang.org, on Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 01:40:42PM +0900:
Hi,
Quoting matz@ruby-lang.org, on Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 02:49:30PM +0900:
Hi,
Quoting matz@ruby-lang.org, on Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 11:22:18PM +0900:
On 10/15/06, dblack@wobblini.net <dblack@wobblini.net> wrote:
Hi --
On 10/15/06, dblack@wobblini.net <dblack@wobblini.net> wrote:
Hi,
On 10/16/06, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
On Oct 16, 2006, at 3:06 PM, Rick DeNatale wrote:
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 05:14:09AM +0900, James Edward Gray II wrote:
On 10/16/06, Sam Roberts <sroberts@uniserve.com> wrote:
Hi,
Hi --
On Oct 17, 2006, at 7:29 PM, dblack@wobblini.net wrote:
Hi --
On Oct 18, 2006, at 4:18 AM, dblack@wobblini.net wrote:
On 10/18/06, Eric Hodel <drbrain@segment7.net> wrote:
On 10/18/06, Nikolai Weibull <now@bitwi.se> wrote:
On 10/18/06, mathew <meta@pobox.com> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 04:24:24AM +0900, Nikolai Weibull wrote:
On 10/18/06, Mauricio Fernandez <mfp@acm.org> wrote:
Hi --
On 10/18/06, dblack@wobblini.net <dblack@wobblini.net> wrote:
Hi -
Hi,
Hi --
Rick DeNatale wrote:
Hi --
Hi,
Hi --
On 10/19/06, dblack@wobblini.net <dblack@wobblini.net> wrote:
Hi --
On 10/19/06, dblack@wobblini.net <dblack@wobblini.net> wrote:
Hi --
dblack@wobblini.net wrote:
Hi --
Hi,
Hi --
Hi,
Hi --
On 10/20/06, dblack@wobblini.net <dblack@wobblini.net> wrote:
Hi --
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 01:11:36AM +0900, dblack@wobblini.net wrote:
Hi,
On Oct 18, 2006, at 11:37 AM, Nikolai Weibull wrote:
[#9197] Ruby Threads — "Abhisek Datta" <abhisek@...>
Hello,
[#9282] Re: String not enumerable, what about IO? — "Michael Selig" <michael.selig@...>
I am fairly new to ruby, and I have just started listening to this mailing
[#9341] array.c - defining aliases as aliases — "Daniel Berger" <djberg96@...>
Hi all,
On Oct 27, 2006, at 11:12 AM, Daniel Berger wrote:
[#9351] Module#method_aliased and Module#singleton_method_aliased — "Daniel Berger" <djberg96@...>
Hi all,
Re: [ruby-cvs:18323] ruby: * eval.c (splat_value): use "to_splat" instead of "to_ary" to
On 10/10/06, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In message "Re: [ruby-cvs:18323] ruby: * eval.c (splat_value): use "to_splat" instead of "to_ary" to"
> on Tue, 10 Oct 2006 10:47:43 +0900, dblack@wobblini.net writes:
> |The possible problem with to_values is that it suggests that what was
> |there before the conversion was *not* values, which I think might be
> |misleading. to_args still seems too specific to me -- for example, in
> |this:
> |
> | [*0...10]
> |
> |there's nothing arg-related about what's happening to the range.
>
> It was *a value* before conversion.
Yes, but the proposal is not to_value but to_values which might be
subtle but is a crucial distinction.
> |I also have a question about the use of this method. Do you think it
> |would always be defined in terms of the * itself? In other words:
> |
> | class C
> | def initialize(a)
> | @array = a
> | end
> | def to_values
> | *a
> | end
> | end
> |
> |But then wouldn't it just return an array? Or would the * still
> |un-array it?
> |
> | c = C.new([1,2,3,4])
> | Hash[*c] # == Hash[1,2,3,4] ?
> |
> |But then... why have a separate definition? I'm sure there's a reason
> |-- I'm just not yet seeing how one would use it.
>
> I am not sure I understand you here. Here's little bit modified your
> example.
>
> class C
> def initialize(a)
> @array = a
> end
> def to_values
> @array
> end
> end
>
> c = C.new([1,2,3,4])
> Hash[*c] # == Hash[1,2,3,4]
>
> Do you see any problem?
I'm not sure that I do.
You seem to be saying that some might find that that last line:
Hash[*c]
produces {1 => 2, 3 =>4}
But to my mind this is being overprotective at the cost of being
restrictive. Putting that * in the code indicates that the programmer
WANTS the conversion to be applied.
As I've said before, the changes being made in 1.9 in this area just
don't feel right to me, but that's just my opinion.
--
Rick DeNatale
My blog on Ruby
http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/