[#3986] Re: Principle of least effort -- another Ruby virtue. — Andrew Hunt <andy@...>

> Principle of Least Effort.

14 messages 2000/07/14

[#4043] What are you using Ruby for? — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>

16 messages 2000/07/16

[#4139] Facilitating Ruby self-propagation with the rig-it autopolymorph application. — Conrad Schneiker <schneik@...>

Hi,

11 messages 2000/07/20

[ruby-talk:03878] Re: Array.uniq! returning nil

From: matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
Date: 2000-07-06 10:55:19 UTC
List: ruby-talk #3878
Hi,

In message "[ruby-talk:03862] Re: Array.uniq! returning nil"
    on 00/07/06, "Conrad Schneiker" <schneiker@jump.net> writes:

|> I can agree with the possibility of the combination of modify/copy,
|> modified-or-unmodified-string/modified-string-or-nil.  But I don't
|> feel '?' is a good name sign for it.
|
|Neither do I.
|
|However, there don't seem to be many alternative characters that wouldn't
|look too strange, confusing, or cryptic. Maybe just @, $, %, &.

Other noise characters?  Come on. ;-)

Currently I feel no need for self-modifying, non-conditional
combination.  Basicly one should use copying (non-bang) version of the
methods.  When he/she really wants to enhance performance, then he/she
can use bang version at the risk of himself/herself.  I think you can
pay the cost of making new local variable for the performance tuning,
which is impossible for Python's immutable strings.

							matz.

In This Thread