[#4567] Re: What's the biggest Ruby development? — Aleksi Niemel<aleksi.niemela@...>

Dave said:

18 messages 2000/08/23
[#4568] Q's on Marshal — Robert Feldt <feldt@...> 2000/08/23

[#4580] RubyUnit testcase run for different init params? — Robert Feldt <feldt@...> 2000/08/25

[#4584] Re: RubyUnit testcase run for different init params? — Dave Thomas <Dave@...> 2000/08/25

Robert Feldt <feldt@ce.chalmers.se> writes:

[#4623] Re: RubyUnit testcase run for different init params? — Robert Feldt <feldt@...> 2000/08/28

On Sat, 26 Aug 2000, Dave Thomas wrote:

[#4652] Andy and Dave's European Tour 2000 — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>

24 messages 2000/08/30
[#4653] Re: Andy and Dave's European Tour 2000 — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2000/08/30

Hi,

[#4657] Ruby tutorials for newbie — Kevin Liang <kevin@...> 2000/08/30

Hi,

[ruby-talk:04502] methods w/ ! giving nil

From: Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@...>
Date: 2000-08-18 15:16:49 UTC
List: ruby-talk #4502
I have got used to the idea that methods that end in '!' return nil if
nothing changes.  But not all of them do.  Why does array.sort! not behave
like that?  Why should it be different from the array.uniq! method in this
respect?  I wanted to test if a particular method was producing results in
ascending order, and my:

assert_nil(results.sort!) 

failed, when in fact they were in ascending order.  If there is an
underlying reason for some returning nil when nothing changes and some not
then I might be able to know what to expect more often.

Ruby-1.4.4 Sun Sparc Solaris7

	Hugh
	hgs@dmu.ac.uk


In This Thread

Prev Next