[#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:01429] Re: Scripting versus programming

From: "Conrad Schneiker" <schneiker@...>
Date: 2000-02-16 05:10:27 UTC
List: ruby-talk #1429
From: Dave Thomas <Dave@thomases.com>
Subject: [ruby-talk:01417] Re: Yield

> "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'

OK, so that's 2 votes for callBlock.

> 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.

That's a very large and highly relevant crowd, and mutator is at least a big
step in the right direction, so, OK.

From: Dave Thomas <Dave@thomases.com>
Subject: [ruby-talk:01422] Re: Scripting versus programming

> ps. mutator....  ;-)

OK, so that's 3 votes for mutator. :-)

Regards,

Conrad

In This Thread