[#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:01583] Re: Ruby: constructors, new and initialise

From: Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
Date: 2000-02-25 13:46:38 UTC
List: ruby-talk #1583
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to comp.lang.misc as well.

Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@netlab.co.jp> writes:

> `initialize' trick requires two things:
> 
>   * `new' accepts arbtrary number of arguments
>   * `new' does not use arguments to allocate object,
>     just pass to `initialize'

Now I know I'm being stupid here. If Array.new did the object
allocation, and then passed all its arguments to initialize to do
further initialization on that object, it seems we get the best of
both worlds. I don't see that it's necessary for .initialize to do the 
allocation (any more than Dave.initialize allocates the underlying
memory for a Dave object--it may create instance variables, but
there's still the object structure allocated by New). 

I just know I'm missing something here. Sorry.


Dave

In This Thread