[#1649] Re: New Ruby projects — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
[#1672] Re: Ruby 1.4 stable manual bug? — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
[#1673] Re: Possible problem with ext/socket in 1.5.2 — itojun@...
[#1694] Conventions for our Ruby book — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
[#1715] Install postgresql support — Ikhlasul Amal <amal@...>
Hi all,
Hi,
[#1786] Is this a bug? — Clemens Hintze <clemens.hintze@...>
(mailed & posted)
[#1814] Objects nested sometimes. — Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@...>
I am attemptiong to write a package which consists of a workspace
[#1816] Ruby 1.5.3 under Tru64 (Alpha)? — Clemens Hintze <clemens.hintze@...>
Hi all,
Hi,
Yukihiro Matsumoto writes:
Hi,
Hi,
[#1834] enum examples? — Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@...>
Has anyone any examplse of using the Enumerable module? I've had a
[#1844] Minor irritation, can't figure out how to patch it though! — Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@...>
I was considering how difficult it would be to patch Ruby to accept
[#1889] [ruby-1.5.3] require / SAFE — ts <decoux@...>
[#1896] Ruby Syntax similar to other languages? — "David Douthitt" <DDouthitt@...>
From: Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@netlab.co.jp>
[#1900] Enumerations and all that. — Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@...>
Thank you to the people who responded to my questions about Enumerated
Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@dmu.ac.uk> writes:
On 16 Mar 2000, Dave Thomas wrote:
[#1929] Re: Class Variables — "David Douthitt" <DDouthitt@...>
| "David Douthitt" <DDouthitt@cuna.com> writes:
[#1942] no Fixnum#new ? — Quinn Dunkan <quinn@...>
Ok, I can add methods to a built-in class well enough (yes I know about succ,
[#1989] English Ruby/Gtk Tutorial? — schneik@...
Hi,
[#2022] rb_global_entry — ts <decoux@...>
[#2036] Anonymous and Singleton Classes — B_DAVISON <Bob.Davison@...>
I am a Ruby newbie and having some problems getting my mind around certain
[#2069] Ruby/GTK+ question about imlib --> gdk-pixbug — schneik@...
[#2073] Re: eval.rb fails — "Dat Nguyen" <thucdat@...>
The doc is fine, this happens only if you try to execute 'until' block
On Wed, 22 Mar 2000, Dat Nguyen wrote:
[#2084] Scope violated by import via 'require'? — Clemens Hintze <c.hintze@...>
Hi,
[#2104] ARGF or $< — Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@...>
Has anyone any examples of how to use ARGF or $< as I cannot find much
Hi.
[#2165] Ruby strict mode and stand-alone executables. — "Conrad Schneiker" <schneiker@...>
Some people want Ruby to have a strict compile mode.
[#2203] Re: parse bug in 1.5 — schneik@...
[#2212] Re: Ruby/Glade usage questions. — ts <decoux@...>
>>>>> "m" == mrilu <mrilu@ale.cx> writes:
[#2241] setter() for local variables — ts <decoux@...>
[#2256] Multiple assignment of pattern match results. — schneik@...
[#2267] Re: Ruby and Eiffel — h.fulton@...
[#2309] Question about attribute writers — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
Clemens Hintze <c.hintze@gmx.net> writes:
[ruby-talk:02064] A thought
Ruby is nice and provides some nice features for those tripping and bumbling in from procedural programming languages. Could Ruby provide some sort of a "strict-OOP" mode which would force one NOT to use all those "hidden" features and to use the real OOP power of Ruby instead? Some things that could be flagged or rejected would be: * method definition outside a class (which would normally be class Object) * no function calls (only method calls) * self is required rather than assumed Or is this idea not useful...? Or is this idea better for a ruby-lint program? Just thinking out loud. Maybe ruby could be presented as an easy introduction to Smalltalk :-)