[#1026] Is this a bug? — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
18 messages
2000/01/03
[#1053] rand() / drand48() — ts <decoux@...>
11 messages
2000/01/05
[#1055] Re: rand() / drand48()
— matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
2000/01/05
[#1061] Re: rand() / drand48()
— gotoken@... (GOTO Kentaro)
2000/01/07
Hi,
[#1067] Here docs not skipping leading spaces — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
5 messages
2000/01/08
[#1083] YADQ (Yet Another Dumb Question) — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
12 messages
2000/01/10
[#1084] Infinite loop — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
17 messages
2000/01/11
[#1104] The value of while... — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
24 messages
2000/01/11
[#1114] Re: The value of while...
— Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
2000/01/12
matz@netlab.co.jp (Yukihiro Matsumoto) writes:
[#1128] Re: The value of while... — David Suarez de Lis <excalibor@...>
Hi all,
1 message
2000/01/12
[#1133] Re: Class variables... — David Suarez de Lis <excalibor@...>
Hi there,
2 messages
2000/01/12
[#1158] Is this expected behavior? — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
6 messages
2000/01/21
[#1172] Re: Possible bug in ruby-man-1.4 — Huayin Wang <wang@...>
> |Well, I guess it comes down to what you mean by an integer
10 messages
2000/01/24
[#1177] Re: Possible bug in ruby-man-1.4
— Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
2000/01/25
matz@netlab.co.jp (Yukihiro Matsumoto) writes:
[#1188] Enumerable and index — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
5 messages
2000/01/27
[#1193] Semantics of chomp/chop — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
7 messages
2000/01/28
[#1197] Question about 'open' — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
8 messages
2000/01/30
[ruby-talk:01132] Re: The value of while...
From:
David Suarez de Lis <excalibor@...>
Date:
2000-01-12 15:06:32 UTC
List:
ruby-talk #1132
Hi!,
Matz-san said:
> In message "[ruby-talk:01124] Re: The value of while..."
> on 00/01/12, Dave Thomas <Dave@thomases.com> writes:
>
> |Thinking again about class definitions returning a value, I wonder how
> |many people would find the concept of Class and meta-classes more
> |obvious if the syntax were
> |
> | Dave = Class.new {
> | }
>
> Same policy applies here.
>
> | class Dave
> | end
>
> is more beautiful (from my view :-), and traditional than
>
> | Dave = Class.new {
> | }
Well, I find this one pretty elegant, though ;) And original :)
The 'end' one reminds me to Visualargh Basic too much (I know, I know, Eiffel also uses 'end', but then Meyer is a classicist ;)
not that I am suggesting a change (but we save 1 byte per class definition :) (and it's consistent with Procs... I love them :)
well, abayo,
d@
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mensaje enviado gracias al correo gratuito de Demasiado Corp.
[http://correo.demasiado.com]
-------------------------------------------------------------