[#10209] Market for XML Web stuff — Matt Sergeant <matt@...>

I'm trying to get a handle on what the size of the market for AxKit would be

15 messages 2001/02/01

[#10238] RFC: RubyVM (long) — Robert Feldt <feldt@...>

Hi,

20 messages 2001/02/01
[#10364] Re: RFC: RubyVM (long) — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2001/02/05

[#10708] Suggestion for threading model — Stephen White <spwhite@...>

I've been playing around with multi-threading. I notice that there are

11 messages 2001/02/11

[#10853] Re: RubyChangeRequest #U002: new proper name for Hash#indexes, Array#indexes — "Mike Wilson" <wmwilson01@...>

10 messages 2001/02/14

[#11037] to_s and << — "Brent Rowland" <tarod@...>

list = [1, 2.3, 'four', false]

15 messages 2001/02/18

[#11094] Re: Summary: RCR #U002 - proper new name fo r indexes — Aleksi Niemel<aleksi.niemela@...>

> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

12 messages 2001/02/19

[#11131] Re: Summary: RCR #U002 - proper new name fo r indexes — "Conrad Schneiker" <schneik@...>

Robert Feldt wrote:

10 messages 2001/02/19

[#11251] Programming Ruby is now online — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>

36 messages 2001/02/21

[#11469] XML-RPC and KDE — schuerig@... (Michael Schuerig)

23 messages 2001/02/24
[#11490] Re: XML-RPC and KDE — schuerig@... (Michael Schuerig) 2001/02/24

Michael Neumann <neumann@s-direktnet.de> wrote:

[#11491] Negative Reviews for Ruby and Programming Ruby — Jim Freeze <jim@...> 2001/02/24

Hi all:

[#11633] RCR: shortcut for instance variable initialization — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>

13 messages 2001/02/26

[#11652] RE: RCR: shortcut for instance variable initialization — Michael Davis <mdavis@...>

I like it!

14 messages 2001/02/27

[#11700] Starting Once Again — Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@...>

OK, I'm starting again with Ruby. I'm just assuming that I've

31 messages 2001/02/27
[#11712] RE: Starting Once Again — "Aaron Hinni" <aaron@...> 2001/02/27

> 2. So far I think running under TextPad will be better than running

[#11726] Re: Starting Once Again — Aleksi Niemel<zak@...> 2001/02/28

On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Aaron Hinni wrote:

[ruby-talk:11019] Re: RCR Summary 02/16/01

From: "Ben Tilly" <ben_tilly@...>
Date: 2001-02-17 19:23:02 UTC
List: ruby-talk #11019
Aleksi Niemel<zak@ale.cx> wrote:
>
>On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Ben Tilly wrote:
>
> > Oh, if I am going to make requests, I would also like it
> > if "#foo" was syntactic sugar for "#{foo}".  (Just to stop
> > people complaining that interpolation requires 2 extra
> > characters.)
>
>Let's take a look at this:
>
>ruby -v -e'a="b"; $c="d"; @e="f"; def g; "h"; end; puts "#a #$c #@e #g";'
>ruby 1.6.2 (2000-12-25) [i686-linux]
>#a d f #g
>
>So #$foo and #@foo are already syntactic sugar. I'm not sure I really
>need to get #foo to be #{foo}. Combination of '#' and a special char
>happens much rarely accidentally whereas plain '#' happens quite
>often. It would be nice of course, as Perl shows. And in my experience
>there isn't mess too often.

I listed it because it is a complaint I have seen.

>However, I'm sure it would break bunch of scripts, which currently
>just print innocent comments and in the future interpolate variable or
>method calls.

Certainly it is not backwards compatible.  Personally
I had not carefully considered the fact that it would
interpolate method calls.

I think that it would be sufficient to satisfy complaints
if a pattern matching /#(\w+)\b/ would only interpolate
when $1 was a variable in scope.  (A limitation that
would eliminate most accidental interpolations.)

Cheers,
Ben
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

In This Thread

Prev Next