[#20675] RCR: non-bang equivalent to []= — Tobias Reif <tobiasreif@...>

Hi,

49 messages 2001/09/01
[#20774] Re: RCR: non-bang equivalent to []= — Tobias Reif <tobiasreif@...> 2001/09/03

I wrote:

[#20778] Re: RCR: non-bang equivalent to []= — Kevin Smith <kevinbsmith@...> 2001/09/03

--- Tobias Reif <tobiasreif@pinkjuice.com> wrote:

[#20715] oreilly buch von matz - website online — markus jais <info@...>

hi

43 messages 2001/09/02
[#20717] Re: OReilly Ruby book has snail on cover — ptkwt@...1.aracnet.com (Phil Tomson) 2001/09/02

Actually, thanks for posting it here. I was trying to search OReilly's

[#20922] Re: OReilly Ruby book has snail on cover — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2001/09/05

On Mon, 3 Sep 2001, Phil Tomson wrote:

[#20768] Minor cgi.rb question — "Hal E. Fulton" <hal9000@...>

I don't have much experience with

25 messages 2001/09/03

[#20770] Calling member methods from C++ — jglueck@... (Bernhard Glk)

Some quetsions have been solved for me, but my message system does not

12 messages 2001/09/03

[#20976] destructor — Frank Sonnemans <ruby@...>

Does Ruby have a destructor as in C++?

25 messages 2001/09/07

[#21218] Ruby objects <-> XML: anyone working on this? — senderista@... (Tobin Baker)

Are there any Ruby analogs of these two Python modules (xml_pickle,

13 messages 2001/09/15

[#21296] nested require files need path internally — Bob Gustafson <bobgus@...>

Version: 1.64

29 messages 2001/09/18
[#21298] Re: nested require files need path internally — David Alan Black <dblack@...> 2001/09/18

Hello --

[#21302] Re: nested require files need path internally — Bob Gustafson <bobgus@...> 2001/09/18

On Tue, 18 Sep 2001, David Alan Black wrote:

[#21303] Re: nested require files need path internally — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2001/09/18

Hi,

[#21306] Re: nested require files need path internally — Lars Christensen <larsch@...> 2001/09/18

On Tue, 18 Sep 2001, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#21307] Re: nested require files need path internally — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2001/09/18

Hi,

[#21331] Re: nested require files need path internally — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2001/09/18

> The big difference is C++ search done in compile time, Ruby search

[#21340] Re: nested require files need path internally — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2001/09/18

Hi,

[#21353] Re: nested require files need path internally — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2001/09/18

On Wed, 19 Sep 2001, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#21366] Re: nested require files need path internally — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2001/09/19

Hi,

[#21368] Re: nested require files need path internally — "Julian Fitzell" <julian-ml@...4.com> 2001/09/19

On 19/09/2001 at 10:12 AM matz@ruby-lang.org wrote:

[#21376] Re: nested require files need path internally — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2001/09/19

Hi,

[#21406] Re: nested require files need path internally — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2001/09/19

On Wed, 19 Sep 2001, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#21315] Suggestions for new CGI lib — anders@... (Anders Johannsen)

From the comp.lang.ruby thread "Minor cgi.rb question" (2001-09-03), I

21 messages 2001/09/18

[#21413] Ruby/objects book in style of The Little Lisper — Brian Marick <marick@...>

I fell in love with Lisp in the early 80's. Back then, I read a book called

36 messages 2001/09/19
[#21420] Re: Ruby/objects book in style of The Little Lisper — Christopher Sawtell <csawtell@...> 2001/09/20

On 20 Sep 2001 06:19:44 +0900, Brian Marick wrote:

[#21479] Re: Ruby/objects book in style of The Little Lisper — Kevin Smith <kevinbsmith@...> 2001/09/21

--- Christopher Sawtell <csawtell@paradise.net.nz> wrote:

[#21491] SV: Re: Ruby/objects book in style of The Little Lisper — "Mikkel Damsgaard" <mikkel_damsgaard@...> 2001/09/21

[#21494] Re: SV: Re: Ruby/objects book in style of The Little Lisper — Kevin Smith <kevinbsmith@...> 2001/09/21

--- Mikkel Damsgaard <mikkel_damsgaard@mailme.dk> wrote:

[#21510] Re: SV: Re: Ruby/objects book in style of The Little Lisper — Todd Gillespie <toddg@...> 2001/09/22

On Sat, 22 Sep 2001, Kevin Smith wrote:

[#21514] Re: SV: Re: Ruby/objects book in style of The Little Lisper — Kevin Smith <kevinbsmith@...> 2001/09/22

--- Todd Gillespie <toddg@mail.ma.utexas.edu> wrote:

[#21535] irb — Fabio <fabio.spelta@...>

Hello. :) I'm new here, and I have not found an archive of the previous

15 messages 2001/09/22

[#21616] opening a named pipe? — "Avdi B. Grimm" <avdi@...>

I'm having trouble reading from a named pipe in linux. basicly, I'm

12 messages 2001/09/24

[#21685] manipulating "immutable" objects such as Fixnum from within callbacks & al... — Guillaume Cottenceau <gc@...>

Hello,

15 messages 2001/09/25

[#21798] Ruby internal (guide to the source) — "Benoit Cerrina" <benoit.cerrina@...>

Hi,

22 messages 2001/09/28

[ruby-talk:21064] Re: RCR: non-bang equivalent to []=

From: "Conrad Schneiker" <schneiker@...>
Date: 2001-09-11 12:19:00 UTC
List: ruby-talk #21064
Hi,

"Tobias Reif" <tobiasreif@pinkjuice.com> wrote:

> Conrad Schneiker wrote:
>
> > FWIW, I find the _seeming_ semantic inconsistency (or semantic
> > non-transparency if you will) to much more annoying than a few extra '!'
> > chars.
>
> Me too.
>
> > This is the one of the few features of Ruby that I will probably
> > always find annoying.
>
>
> Do you have a feasible idea, solution, concept, or suggestion?

Unfortunately not.

After pestering people about this same issue over a year ago or so, IIRC, I
came to the same conclusion that I mentioned in my preceding post. All I can
do is reiterate it and stress that I think there cannot be any reasonable
way around the massive backwards incompatibility issue. To quote my former
self,

# I think this gets at the really *big* problem--backwards
# incompatibility with *lots* of code and documentation!!!!

# IMO, rather than (seemingly) trying to rationalize this design after
# the fact and to argue against deep preferences that are typically
# not the sorts of things that arguing can be reasonably expected to
# modify, we should simply tell new Ruby users (who don't like this
# feature) at the outset that it is unfortunately too late to make
# such a major change. (Plus Matz probably wouldn't agree to it.)

Maybe there should be an entry in the Ruby FAQ alerting Ruby newcomers to
issues such as this that have been thoroughly (and increasingly repeatedly)
thrashed around and where arguing for change is generally considered to be
utterly futile by the overwhelming majority of Ruby wizards (along with a
brief explanation as to why).

Conrad


In This Thread