[#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:11074] Re: to_s and <<

From: David Alan Black <dblack@...>
Date: 2001-02-19 01:43:11 UTC
List: ruby-talk #11074
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, craig duncan wrote:

> 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?  

No, because to_s is inherited from Object by every object, whereas
to_str is only defined for a couple of built-in types (String,
Exception).

> 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.

Here's my current understanding of it, for what it's worth:

Every object will respond to to_s, and to_s will always give you
*something*.  But sometimes you might want a given class to have a
non-canonical way of showing itself as a string.  In such a case, you
can define a to_str method, such that your objects have their own idea
of how to represent themselves as strings.

A little test/demo:

   class Pretender

     attr_reader :to_str

     def initialize(s)
       @to_str = "I am a Pretender object initialized with #{s}."
     end

   end

   p = Pretender.new(Math::PI)

   puts "Canonical/inherited conversion to string:"
   puts p.to_s
   puts
   puts "Pretender object's own choice as to how to appear as a string:"
   puts p.to_str


Once an object has its to_str method, it will be able to respond with
something when it is asked to do so by (for example) String#<<.  


David

-- 
David Alan Black
home: dblack@candle.superlink.net
work: blackdav@shu.edu
Web:  http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav


In This Thread