[#4766] Wiki — "Glen Stampoultzis" <trinexus@...>

21 messages 2000/09/04
[#4768] RE: Wiki — "NAKAMURA, Hiroshi" <nahi@...> 2000/09/04

Hi, Glen,

[#4783] Re: Wiki — Masatoshi SEKI <m_seki@...> 2000/09/04

[#4785] Re: Wiki — "NAKAMURA, Hiroshi" <nakahiro@...> 2000/09/05

Howdy,

[#4883] Re-binding a block — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>

16 messages 2000/09/12

[#4930] Perl 6 rumblings -- RFC 225 (v1) Data: Superpositions — Conrad Schneiker <schneik@...>

Hi,

11 messages 2000/09/15

[#4936] Ruby Book Eng. translation editor's questions — Jon Babcock <jon@...>

20 messages 2000/09/16

[#5045] Proposal: Add constants to Math — Robert Feldt <feldt@...>

15 messages 2000/09/21

[#5077] Crazy idea? infix method calls — hal9000@...

This is a generalization of the "in" operator idea which I

17 messages 2000/09/22

[#5157] Compile Problem with 1.6.1 — Scott Billings <aerogems@...>

When I try to compile Ruby 1.6.1, I get the following error:

15 messages 2000/09/27

[ruby-talk:4859] Re: FEATURE REQUEST: Fixnum bitfields

From: Wayne Scott <wscott@...>
Date: 2000-09-11 18:00:15 UTC
List: ruby-talk #4859
From: Wayne Scott <wscott@ichips.intel.com>
> I just realized that the '[]=' is not implimented for Fixnum and Bignum.
> Add that to my feature request. :)

I bet you can't impliment '[]=' for Fixnum because it is an immediate
value right?

Even Bignum would be a problem:

a = 44
b = a
 
a[4] = 1    # this changes 'b' as well as 'a'

Assuming the above is correct, I need to rethink wanting to write BitFields.

-Wayne

In This Thread