[#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:01417] Re: Yield

From: Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
Date: 2000-02-16 02:56:43 UTC
List: ruby-talk #1417
"Conrad Schneiker" <schneiker@jump.net> writes:

> At the moment, I strongly prefer callBlock because it is syntactically
> self-documenting.

I could live with it, although I confess I don't really have a problem 
with 'yield'

> (PS: likewise, can we agree to describe "destructive methods" as "change
> methods"?)

This one I don't like. Although I think "destructive methods" is not
right, I feel that "change methods" is just too vague.  If we're going
to alter the name, my first vote would go with 'mutators'. That seems
to be pretty standard in the C++ and Java worlds. I know 'mutator' is
a $2 word, but it seems better to me.


Regards

Dave

In This Thread