[#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:01435] Re: Scripting versus programming

From: matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
Date: 2000-02-16 05:41:38 UTC
List: ruby-talk #1435
Hi,

In message "[ruby-talk:01429] Re: Scripting versus programming"
    on 00/02/15, "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.

Well, although I admit `callBlock' is more self descriptive than
`yield', I still want reserved words to be non-combinational word.

							matz.

In This Thread