From: Andrew Wagner <wagner.andrew@...>
Date: 2010-09-03T05:07:46+09:00
Subject: Re: p vs. print

--0015175cd450bc281e048f4c5dc9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

No problem. I actually used to think that they were identical, which led to
some confusion. That's the only reason i point it out.

On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Alex Stahl <astahl@hi5.com> wrote:

> 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"
>
>
>
>

--0015175cd450bc281e048f4c5dc9--