[#3109] Is divmod dangerous? — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>

14 messages 2000/06/06

[#3149] Retrieving the hostname and port in net/http — Roland Jesse <jesse@...>

Hi,

12 messages 2000/06/07

[#3222] Ruby coding standard? — Robert Feldt <feldt@...>

16 messages 2000/06/09

[#3277] Re: BUG or something? — Aleksi Niemel<aleksi.niemela@...>

> |I am new to Ruby and this brings up a question I have had

17 messages 2000/06/12
[#3281] Re: BUG or something? — Dave Thomas <Dave@...> 2000/06/12

Aleksi Niemel<aleksi.niemela@cinnober.com> writes:

[#3296] RE: about documentation — Aleksi Niemel<aleksi.niemela@...>

> I want to contribute to the ruby project in my spare time.

15 messages 2000/06/12

[#3407] Waffling between Python and Ruby — "Warren Postma" <embed@...>

I was looking at the Ruby editor/IDE for windows and was disappointed with

19 messages 2000/06/14

[#3410] Exercice: Translate into Ruby :-) — Jilani Khaldi <jilanik@...>

Hi All,

17 messages 2000/06/14

[#3415] Re: Waffling between Python and Ruby — Andrew Hunt <andy@...>

>Static typing..., hmm,...

11 messages 2000/06/14

[#3453] Re: Static Typing( Was: Waffling between Python and Ruby) — Andrew Hunt <andy@...>

32 messages 2000/06/16

[#3516] Deep copy? — Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@...>

Given that I cannot overload =, how should I go about ensuring a deep

20 messages 2000/06/19

[#3694] Why it's quiet — hal9000@...

We are all busy learning the new language

26 messages 2000/06/29
[#3703] Re: Why it's quiet — "NAKAMURA, Hiroshi" <nahi@...> 2000/06/30

Hi,

[#3705] Re: Why it's quiet — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2000/06/30

Hi,

[ruby-talk:03384] Re: chomp!

From: Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
Date: 2000-06-14 04:21:26 UTC
List: ruby-talk #3384
matz@netlab.co.jp (Yukihiro Matsumoto) writes:

> Hi,
> 
> In message "[ruby-talk:03381] Re: chomp!"
>     on 00/06/13, Dave Thomas <Dave@thomases.com> writes:
> 
> |> |chomp:
> |> |       Equivalent to $_.chomp!(aString), except nil is never
> |> |       returned. If $_ is changed, the new version is returned,
> |> |       otherwise a copy of the original value is returned. See
> |> |       String#chomp! on page 1.
> |> 
> |>         Equivalent to `$_ = $_.chomp(aString)'.
> |
> |Well yes... but our version uses more words, so it must be better ;-)
> 
> Are you saying the same thing?  Well, sorry.

I think so, but yours is better (and is now the new wording)

> By the way, do you prefer the behavior like:
> 
>   str = $_.dup
>   if str.chomp!
>     $_ = str
>   end

Even better would be an implementation (in C) like:

    if $_.chomp?
       str = $_.dup.chomp!
    end

where chomp? did the initial setup for the chomp, and returned true if 
the string would be modified, and then chomp! could use that work to
change the string.

On performance tests I've been doing, string object creations are a
BAD THING, so eliminating that dup would be good.


Regards


Dave


In This Thread