[#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: Symbol < String in Ruby > 1.8
On 10/16/06, James Edward Gray II <james@grayproductions.net> wrote:
> On Oct 16, 2006, at 3:06 PM, Rick DeNatale wrote:
>
> > I'm curious as to why it's a good thing to make String nonenumerable
> > and remove String#each instead of just aliasing lines to each? Are
> > there drawbacks which make it worthwhile breaking existing code?
>
> Well, now that we're stepping into the M17N world it no longer makes
> sense to work with Strings until we specify a unit for the content.
> Each what? Each character, line, or byte?
Well the new methods bytes, lines, and soon chars give you enumerators
which can iterate over a specified unit.
In Ruby 1.8 the default unit for String#each is lines. I don't see
how that's incompatible with M17N.
> I really think this is a good move. Every book that introduces
> String#each says something like, "You probably don't expect this, but
> Strings iterate over lines..." Now it will always be crystal clear:
Yes I was surprised when I discovered that too. Stepping back though,
it's consistent with viewing String as duck-typable with IO rather
than as an array of characters.
Personally I disagree that this is a good move, why break existing
code if it's not necessary? There may be reasons why leaving String
an Enumerable breaks things, but I can't think of any. I'd vote for
putting Enumerable back in string, and making lines an alias for each.
Somewhat on the subject, I'm not sure I understand the rational for
having the pairs of methods like each_byte and bytes not being aliases
of each other:
$ irb1.9
irb(main):001:0> "abc".each_byte
=> #<Enumerable::Enumerator:0xb7d7a340>
irb(main):002:0> "abc".bytes
=> #<Enumerable::Enumerator:0xb7d778fc>
irb(main):003:0> "abc".each_byte {|a| nil}
=> "abc"
irb(main):004:0> "abc".bytes {|a| nil}
=> #<Enumerable::Enumerator:0xb7d690b8>
Notice that String#bytes and String#lines ignore a block if it's
given. On the other hand each_byte and each_line give an enumerator
if no block is given, which is consistent with the way such methods
work in 1.9 for classes which are still enumerable. I don't see a
reason for just making bytes, each_bytes; chars, each_char, and lines,
each_lines pairs of aliased methods.
--
Rick DeNatale
My blog on Ruby
http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/