[#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:01410] Re: Bignum aset

From: matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
Date: 2000-02-15 23:36:37 UTC
List: ruby-talk #1410
Hi,

In message "[ruby-talk:01403] Re: Bignum aset"
    on 00/02/15, Dave Thomas <Dave@thomases.com> writes:

|> Yes, I heard it is deliberate.  An instance of Numeric is a unique
|> object corresponding to a numeric. And, []= is usually a destructive
|> method.

|I thought that only Fixnums were immediate.

Yes, Fixnums are only immdiate numeric.

|Won't happen with Fixnums, but it seems OK to be able to do it with
|Bignums.

Possible, regarding implementation.
But in Ruby, there's no overwrap between Fixnums and Bignums (on
purpose), so that

  1073741823[2] = 1  # error! Fixnum
  1073741824[2] = 1  # ok! Bignum

would be confusing.  I think we should introduce BitArray or something
for that purpose.
							matz.

In This Thread