[#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:11072] Re: to_s and <<

From: craig duncan <duncan@...>
Date: 2001-02-19 01:01:55 UTC
List: ruby-talk #11072
Ben Tilly wrote:
> 
> craig duncan <duncan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> > >
> > > 'to_s' is a mean to convert something into a string (if you really
> > > want to), OTOH 'to_str' is a mean for something that wants to pretend
> > > to be a string. to_a and to_ary are in similar relationship.
> >
> >The problem with this explanation is that i have no idea what it means for
> >something to "pretend to be a string" as opposed to being one.
> 
> Think of it this way.  foo.to_s tells foo to describe itself
> as a string.  foo.to_str checks with foo that it is OK to
> think of foo as being its description, and gets that
> description.
> 
> So to_str is the same as to_s except with an extra assertion
> about the correct usage of that object.

Wow!  That was a little too subtle for me to guess.  I think because of the
minimalism that i (initially) perceive to be lacking in this design.  to_str
can always fill in for to_s, yes?  So what do you need to_s for?  I guess you
could say that you use to_s when you _don't_ want the object to be used as a
string . . . even though you want it to _appear_ that way.  ?  Oh, well, i
guess i can accept that there _might_ be some usage for that distinction
(can't think what, though).  Thanks, Ben.

craig

In This Thread