[#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:01406] Re: Bignum aset

From: Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
Date: 2000-02-15 22:48:59 UTC
List: ruby-talk #1406
gotoken@math.sci.hokudai.ac.jp (GOTO Kentaro) writes:

> Well, immediate and immutable are independent concept each other.
> Immediate value is an implementation technic only at least on Ruby but
> the immutableness is one of properties of objects.  I thinks integers
> are immutable even if non-immediate because I consider a numeric is
> free from its representation and integer[n] is an abbreviation of
> 
>   (("%b" % integer)[-1-n] || ?0).chr.to_i
> 
> But I may be wrong.  Your openion is reasonable if most users consider
> that a numeric is a bit container. 

But doesn't the existence of [] imply that numbers are a bitstring?

In This Thread