[#300] Ruby 1.3.3-990507 — matz <matz@...>
Ruby 1.3.3-990507 is out, check out:
1 message
1999/05/07
[#314] Arity features for Proc object? — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
A mail from <yeboah@tu-harburg.de> is somehow rejected by the list
12 messages
1999/05/17
[#315] Re: Arity features for Proc object?
— matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
1999/05/17
[#316] Re: Arity features for Proc object?
— gotoken@... (GOTO Kentaro)
1999/05/17
In message "[ruby-talk:00315] Re: Arity features for Proc object?"
[#318] Re: Arity features for Proc object?
— matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
1999/05/17
Hi.
[#319] Re: Arity features for Proc object?
— gotoken@... (GOTO Kentaro)
1999/05/17
In message "[ruby-talk:00318] Re: Arity features for Proc object?"
[#320] Re: Arity features for Proc object?
— matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
1999/05/17
Hi.
[#323] binding — Pros Yeboah <yeboah@...>
Hi
5 messages
1999/05/18
[#357] thinking aloud — "Bryce Dooley" <thecrow@...>
First off, I think Ruby is a very nice scripting language.
7 messages
1999/05/29
[ruby-talk:00338] Re: Arity features for Proc object?
From:
gotoken@... (GOTO Kentaro)
Date:
1999-05-24 05:56:39 UTC
List:
ruby-talk #338
In message "[ruby-talk:00337] Re: Arity features for Proc object?"
on 99/05/24, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@netlab.co.jp> writes:
>The negative number is
>
> -(n+1) where n is least required number of arguments
>
>The former seems to accepts zero argument, but actually accepts
>arbitrary number of arguments (for compatibility reason), so arity
>returns a negative number.
I agree this very reasonable spec.
thanks!
-- gotoken