[#4734] Possible regex bug? — hal9000@...
OK, I'm trying to match an optional comma followed by
[#4744] Piping in Ruby? — Stephen White <steve@...>
There's one construct I miss from shell scripts... The ability to pipe the
[#4766] Wiki — "Glen Stampoultzis" <trinexus@...>
Hi, Glen,
Howdy,
> I asked him/her. He/She opened the new site using tiki-1.0.4.
Hi, Glen,
Howdy,
[#4769] unix 'time' in Ruby? — Robert Feldt <feldt@...>
Hi.
[#4774] Module vs. Class — Jilani Khaldi <jilanik@...>
Hi,
[#4776] Listing methods in a module — DaVinci <bombadil@...>
Hi all. I need a little help :)
[#4792] closures — Stuart Zakon <zakons@...>
Can somebody please explain what a closure is within the context of
[#4809] Some questions — Friedrich Dominicus <frido@...>
[#4849] FEATURE REQUEST: Fixnum bitfields — Wayne Scott <wscott@...>
Hi,
[#4883] Re-binding a block — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
matz@zetabits.com (Yukihiro Matsumoto) writes:
[#4916] Re: [TOY] FL — Andrew Hunt <andy@...>
> I still don't understand sorry.
[#4930] Perl 6 rumblings -- RFC 225 (v1) Data: Superpositions — Conrad Schneiker <schneik@...>
Hi,
[#4936] Ruby Book Eng. translation editor's questions — Jon Babcock <jon@...>
Nobody cares about this but me,
Thanks very much for the input.
SugHimsi.
,
[#4951] What do I need to compile 1.4? — "Glen Stampoultzis" <trinexus@...>
Platform is Windows 98
[#4987] Ruby Book Ch 2 English -- arguments/parameters/options? — Jon Babcock <jon@...>
Once again, I must impose on your good graces.
[#4992] Re: Perl 6 rumblings -- RFC 225 (v1) Data: S uperpositions (fwd) — Aleksi Niemel<aleksi.niemela@...>
Michael dared to suggest, and was probably right:
[#5009] Re: Ruby Book Ch 2 English -- arguments/parameters/options? — "Dat Nguyen" <thucdat@...>
[#5011] Changes in 1.6.0 — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
Hi,
[#5013] A QuantumSuperposition Proposal for Ruby — Huayin Wang <wang@...>
# I have been play around the QuantumSuperpositions idea today and
[#5028] A Tru64 problem and ruby-talkietiquette — Aleksi Niemel<aleksi.niemela@...>
I just saw this (the little I could see in English)
[#5033] Having problems with Net::HTTP::do_finish — Dan Schmidt <dfan@...>
I just started using Ruby yesterday, and I'm having trouble with my
[#5045] Proposal: Add constants to Math — Robert Feldt <feldt@...>
Hi,
On Sat, 23 Sep 2000, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, 22 Sep 2000, Masahiro Tanaka wrote:
>From: Robert Feldt <feldt@ce.chalmers.se>
[#5061] Proposal: Add rubycpp.h or include in ruby.h — Robert Feldt <feldt@...>
[#5070] Ruby Book 2.18, Eng.tl, kesaran pasaran? — Jon Babcock <jon@...>
From Ruby Book 2.18:
[#5077] Crazy idea? infix method calls — hal9000@...
This is a generalization of the "in" operator idea which I
[#5082] Application Error in 1.6.0 on Win2K — "Kevin Burge" <kcbspam@...>
I've created a 1.6.0 ruby extension (1.6.0 (2000-09-19) [i586-mswin32]),
[#5092] RE: Hanging require — Aleksi Niemel<aleksi.niemela@...>
> ruby -v a.rb
[#5114] Types and === — hal9000@...
<sigh> I imagine Yoda behind me, shaking his little green head
[#5157] Compile Problem with 1.6.1 — Scott Billings <aerogems@...>
When I try to compile Ruby 1.6.1, I get the following error:
[#5161] Re: Types and === — schneik@...
[#5175] Compiling 1.6.1 problem — Tony Reed <Callus@...>
Compiling Ruby 1.6.1 fails:
Hi,
On 9/29/00, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
From: Tony Reed <Callus@Sympatico.CA>
[ruby-talk:5077] Crazy idea? infix method calls
This is a generalization of the "in" operator idea which I
just posted.
It is a very tentative suggestion. There are probably good
reasons it should not be done, and it could possibly create
a parsing nightmare that is hard to envision.
I am mentioning it anyway, though, because Ruby is well-known
for doing things that are impossible or at least unlikely.
The idea:
In everyday life, we tend to think in terms of operators, which
is why Ruby represents many of its methods as infix operators.
Some operators are even words rather than symbols -- and, or,
etc.
What if Ruby could have user-definable methods that could be
called as infix operators?
In my view, this is more or less equivalent to leaving out the
dot in a method call, e.g. X opr Y is the same as X.opr Y
(obviously it should be a binary operator -- in other words, a
method that takes only one parameter not counting the receiver).
I think omitting the dot could be a signal to the parser that the
method is going to have only one parameter. This could even be
done when there were default values for all the parameters but
the first:
def mymethod(alpha, beta=0, gamma=1)
...
end
x.mymethod(5,0,1) # All of these
x.mymethod(5,0) # method calls
x.mymethod(5) # would do
x mymethod 5 # the same thing...
Of course, I would limit the methods to ordinary method names --
trying to define a new infix operator represented as a punctuation
mark would introduce more problems than even I would want to
think of...
Any comments???
Hal
--
Hal Fulton
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.