From: John Joyce <dangerwillrobinsondanger@...>
Date: 2007-06-17T07:37:34+09:00
Subject: Re: Error in ancestor?


On Jun 16, 2007, at 4:09 PM, Robert Dober wrote:

> On 6/16/07, Morton Goldberg <m_goldberg@ameritech.net> wrote:
>> On Jun 16, 2007, at 2:36 PM, Robert Dober wrote:
>>
>> > On 6/16/07, Morton Goldberg <m_goldberg@ameritech.net> wrote:
>> >> P.S. Why 'puts ancestors.inspect' instead of the simpler 'p
>> >> ancestors'?
>> >
>> > Because output is shorter and more readable. I often get bitten by
>> > debugging output
>> > puts ary1
>> > puts ary2
>> > ### Where the heck does ary2 start?
>> >
>> > so I developed a reflex to use inspect for all kind of
>> > debugging/demonstrating output.
>> > I feel it is goo[df] practice.
>>
>> But isn't 'p <expression>' shorthand for 'puts
>> (<expression>).inspect'? If this is the case and AFAIK it is, then
>> you just need to develop a new reflex to use p.
> Ah you said p, not puts, that's quite clever...
> LOL you are an eagle eye, but you are right of course.
> Robert
> And yes you can chose the f above ;)
>
>>
>> Regards, Morton
>>
>>
>
>
> -- 
> You see things; and you say Why?
> But I dream things that never were; and I say Why not?
> -- George Bernard Shaw
>
Actually p is more like a short form for
puts object.inspect