From: Alex Stahl <astahl@...5.com>
Date: 2010-09-03T04:58:56+09:00
Subject: Re: p vs. print

Sorry, my wording was off.  Understood that they're different methods.

I think of them synonymously, and so when I say "short for", I mean
that's my way of thinking about how they accomplish similar tasks, not
that "p" is literally a representation of "puts".

Thanks for the clarification in any case.


On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 14:46 -0500, Colin Bartlett wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 8:40 PM, Quintus <sutniuq@gmx.net> wrote:
> 
> > Am 02.09.2010 21:23, schrieb Alex Stahl:
> > > Ruby uses "puts", not "print".  "p" is short for "puts".
> > > Try this:
> > > puts ary1
> > > You'll get the same results as:
> > > p ary1
> >
> >
> This is definitely wrong. #p is quite another method than #puts and yet
> >  another than #print. Look at this ...
> 
>  And as another example of the differences:
> class P
>   def inspect(); "P#inspect"; end
>   def to_s(); "P#to_s"; end
> end
> 
> q = P.new
> puts "p"
> p q         #=> "P#inspect"
> puts "puts"
> puts q     #=> "P#to_s"
> puts "print"
> print q
> puts ":: just after print"
>               #=> "P#to_s:: just after print"