[#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:01635] Re: Ruby: constructors, new and initialise

From: Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>
Date: 2000-02-29 03:07:59 UTC
List: ruby-talk #1635
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to comp.lang.misc as well.

Hi,

Dave Thomas <Dave@Thomases.com> writes:

|> For example, if you want to create initialized SortedArray
|> by specifying elements like
|> 
|>   ary = SortedArray(1,5,4,3,7,3)
|> 
|> you just can't.  I feel this as restriction.
|
|That's true. But in what way is that different to any class where the
|constructor takes different parameters to it's subclass?

The biggest difference is redefining `initialize' works when `new'
don't work.  Changing number of arguments in subclass is a bad habit
in general, but `new' serves little bit differently, because it never
(well, seldom) be used polymorphic.

In fact Ruby called `initialize' for these classes before, just like
you proposed. In these days I received several complains like:
`initialize' would not work as I expect, it requires fixed number of
arguments, etc.

							matz.

In This Thread