[#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:00354] Re: local variables
From:
matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
Date:
1999-05-27 10:05:37 UTC
List:
ruby-talk #354
In message "[ruby-talk:00353] Re: local variables"
on 99/05/27, GOTO Kentaro <gotoken@math.sci.hokudai.ac.jp> writes:
| BEGIN, top level, and def/class/module...end have new scopes apart
| from outer scope. Matz said this policy originated in CLU.
I was believing so. But recently I read the article about CLU again,
it found out I was wrong. CLU's scope nests. Now I'm wondering where
I got this idea from. Hmm..
| This result shows the fact that the first appearance of a variable
| spends more time cost. But this result depends on the
| implementation of interpreter.
That's not accurate. In current implementation, access for the local
variables which appear for the first time in the block (they are
sometimes called as in-block local variables), slightly cost more than
ordinary local variables. defined?(v) returns"local-variable(in-block)"
for these variables.
matz.