From: Logan Capaldo <logancapaldo@...>
Date: 2006-09-03T06:12:56+09:00
Subject: Re: That's Ruby, Virginia!


On Sep 2, 2006, at 4:51 PM, Henry Savr wrote:

> Morton Goldberg wrote:
>> I don't want to rain on your parade, especially because I can't
>> figure out why you're having a parade. I could understand a newbie
>> being puzzled about this code (because he wrote [0 ... length] where
>> he should used 0 ... length) and posting it so someone could explain
>> why it works the way it does, but you say that's not your situation.
>> Could you be more explicit about what amuses, delights, intrigues, or
>> otherwise motivates you to bring this to our attention?
>>
>> Regards, Morton
>
> Well,
> I bring it to your attention because:
> It mentioned in Programming Ruby, that *for* works with array. They  
> gave
> the example of song array. All languages, which I am familiar with  
> work
> the same way. They
> - take an item from Array,
> - execute the block,
> - and then take another item
>
> So as [0 ... len] is a new Array,

It's a new array of size 1 though.

0...len is a _single_ object
what you wrote was
x = 0...len

for i in [x]

Ruby is not perl, ... does not construct lists.

> I expected the same behaviour.
> But it was not so obvious. It took the whole array and executes the
> statement ones. I would expect this behaviour if the code were
>
> for i = [0 ... len]
>
> So, my question was to persons, who realy UNDERSTAND Ruby internal
> logic, what was it, a bug or undocumented (or may be documented, but I
> just missed it) feature?
>

It's neither a bug or a feature. You just didn't grasp the syntax.

> Regards,
> Henry
>
> -- 
> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
>