From: Francis Cianfrocca <garbagecat10@...>
Date: 2006-05-15T07:38:22+09:00
Subject: Re: begining programmer questions

------=_Part_59130_18218819.1147646297435
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

A lot of people have the mistaken notion that Ruby is not "strongly typed"
(perhaps because they confuse dynamic type-resolution with weak typing), an=
d
this is a good counterexample. You might suppose that Ruby could infer from
the syntax info[]=3D that it should create an object of type Array, but in
fact the method named []=3D is defined on other classes (such as Hash), and
could of course be defined or meta-defined in your own classes. So Ruby
doesn't try to guess what class you meant.

On 5/14/06, corey konrad <0011@hush.com> wrote:
>
> i dont know doing info =3D Array.new seems like an array declaration to
> me. Couldn the constrution of an array object be implied in just saying
> info[] you what what i mean? That would be even more simplified.
>
>
>
> corey konrad wrote:
> > oh ok thats right it has to be an object in order to be useful. The boo=
k
> > i am reading didnt mention that in the entire chapter on arrays. thats
> > why i didnt get it.
> >
> >
> >
> > Michael Gorsuch wrote:
> >> When you call 'info[]', the '[]' piece is actually trying to invoke a
> >> method
> >> in the object.
> >>
> >> since 'info' is not delcared as an object, Ruby has no clue what to do=
.
> >>
> >> Now, if you did this:
> >>
> >> info =3D []
> >>
> >> or
> >>
> >> info =3D Array.new
> >>
> >> You'd be better off.
> >>
> >> As for stuffing 'info' with data, you can do this:
> >>
> >> info << gets.comp
> >>
> >> and
> >>
> >> info.sort!
> >>
> >> Does this help you at al
>
>
> --
> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
>
>

------=_Part_59130_18218819.1147646297435--