[#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:00344] Re: Struct.new
From:
gotoken@... (GOTO Kentaro)
Date:
1999-05-26 04:57:01 UTC
List:
ruby-talk #344
Greetings!
In message "[ruby-talk:00343] Re: Struct.new"
on 99/05/26, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@netlab.co.jp> writes:
>patch). But I want to discuss whether we should choose this behavior
>or not. What do you guys (other than Pros) think about this?
Struct? I've hardly used it...
Because St.new() looks something like Array.new(2), I think it is
suitable to return nil for member which is not set.
By analogy Array.new, I feel a necessity of an optional way to specify
defualt value for each member. For example,
Struct.new("St", :first, :second, [0,0]). But it is too complex maybe.
-- gotoken