[#1263] Draft of the updated Ruby FAQ — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>

33 messages 2000/02/08

[#1376] Re: Scripting versus programming — Andrew Hunt <andy@...>

Conrad writes:

13 messages 2000/02/15

[#1508] Ruby/GTK and the mainloop — Ian Main <imain@...>

17 messages 2000/02/19
[#1544] Re: Ruby/GTK and the mainloop — Yasushi Shoji <yashi@...> 2000/02/23

Hello Ian,

[#1550] Re: Ruby/GTK and the mainloop — Ian Main <imain@...> 2000/02/23

On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 02:56:10AM -0500, Yasushi Shoji wrote:

[#1516] Ruby: PLEASE use comp.lang.misc for all Ruby programming/technical questions/discussions!!!! — "Conrad Schneiker" <schneiker@...>

((FYI: This was sent to the Ruby mail list.))

10 messages 2000/02/19

[#1569] Re: Ruby: constructors, new and initialise — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>

The following message is a courtesy copy of an article

12 messages 2000/02/25

[ruby-talk:01261] Re: A vote for old behavior

From: Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
Date: 2000-02-07 18:54:24 UTC
List: ruby-talk #1261
matz@netlab.co.jp (Yukihiro Matsumoto) writes:

> Hi,
> 
> In message "[ruby-talk:01229] A vote for old behavior"
>     on 00/02/03, Dave Thomas <Dave@thomases.com> writes:
> 
> |Could I put in a vote for a return to the old behavior of 'gsub!' ?
> |
> |Sometimes it's nice to be able to write
> |
> |  1 while gsub!(....)
> |
> |(for example while matching nested syntactical constructs)
> 
> After discussing seriously at ruby-dev mail list, I changed my mind
> (again) to restore old behavior.  Sorry for confusion I may cause.

So, just to confirm - sub! and gsub! will return nil if there's no
change.

Thanks for considering the change.

Dave

In This Thread