[#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:01475] Re: Bignum aset

From: matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
Date: 2000-02-17 14:23:48 UTC
List: ruby-talk #1475
Hi,

In message "[ruby-talk:01471] Re: Bignum aset"
    on 00/02/17, "Conrad Schneiker" <schneiker@jump.net> writes:

|> etc.  It just seems like a basic enough facility to warrant
|> inclusion in the language, that's all (plus a small speed
|> advantage to coding it in C).
|
|Well, efficient bit vectors are pretty important and fairly widely used for
|cryptography, digital logic design, process control stuff, and all sorts of
|other things. So I am in favor of them being included in the language (and I
|expect the speed advantage of being coded in C would be pretty large in many
|cases of interest to application developers).

Shall I write and bundle extension, say BitVector?
It is fairly easy using Bignum structure, once specification is
defined.

							matz.

In This Thread

Prev Next