[#5218] Ruby Book Eng tl, ch1 question — Jon Babcock <jon@...>

13 messages 2000/10/02

[#5404] Object.foo, setters and so on — "Hal E. Fulton" <hal9000@...>

OK, here is what I think I know.

14 messages 2000/10/11

[#5425] Ruby Book Eng. tl, 9.8.11 -- seishitsu ? — Jon Babcock <jon@...>

18 messages 2000/10/11
[#5427] RE: Ruby Book Eng. tl, 9.8.11 -- seishitsu ? — OZAWA -Crouton- Sakuro <crouton@...> 2000/10/11

At Thu, 12 Oct 2000 03:49:46 +0900,

[#5429] Re: Ruby Book Eng. tl, 9.8.11 -- seishitsu ? — Jon Babcock <jon@...> 2000/10/11

Thanks for the input.

[#5432] Re: Ruby Book Eng. tl, 9.8.11 -- seishitsu ? — Yasushi Shoji <yashi@...> 2000/10/11

At Thu, 12 Oct 2000 04:53:41 +0900,

[#5516] Re: Some newbye question — ts <decoux@...>

>>>>> "D" == Davide Marchignoli <marchign@di.unipi.it> writes:

80 messages 2000/10/13
[#5531] Re: Some newbye question — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2000/10/14

Hi,

[#5544] Re: Some newbye question — Davide Marchignoli <marchign@...> 2000/10/15

On Sat, 14 Oct 2000, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#5576] Re: local variables (nested, in-block, parameters, etc.) — Dave Thomas <Dave@...> 2000/10/16

matz@zetabits.com (Yukihiro Matsumoto) writes:

[#5617] Re: local variables (nested, in-block, parameters, etc.) — "Brian F. Feldman" <green@...> 2000/10/16

Dave Thomas <Dave@thomases.com> wrote:

[#5705] Dynamic languages, SWOT ? — Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@...>

There has been discussion on this list/group from time to time about

16 messages 2000/10/20
[#5712] Re: Dynamic languages, SWOT ? — Charles Hixson <charleshixsn@...> 2000/10/20

Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng wrote:

[#5882] [RFC] Towards a new synchronisation primitive — hipster <hipster@...4all.nl>

Hello fellow rubyists,

21 messages 2000/10/26

[ruby-talk:5373] Re: Allowing *ary's in the middle of a camma separated list

From: "Akinori MUSHA" <knu@...>
Date: 2000-10-10 08:04:46 UTC
List: ruby-talk #5373
At Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:17:24 +0900,
I wrote:
>   system 'rcsdiff', *options, "-r#{revold}", "-r#{revnew}", "#{root}/#{file},v"
> 
> I can cope with this situation by .flatten'ing the whole list however,
> I don't feel like it because I certainly know which elements need to
> be flattened. (ARGV in this case, of course)
                 options, of course ;)

At Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:24:28 +0900,
Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@zetabits.com> wrote:
> How about this?
> 
>   system 'rcsdiff', *(options+["-r#{revold}", "-r#{revnew}", "#{root}/#{file},v"])

Well, yes, that's supposed to work, but I simply do not feel it's as
pretty as other parts of Ruby.  I mean, I just couldn't explain why
"proc(a, b, *c)" is allowed and "proc(a, *b, c)" or "proc(a, *b, *c)"
is not, considering Ruby's consistent nature.

Is it hard to implement that, or does it decrease Ruby's cleanness in
any sense? (I'm not pushing so hard, but just curious :)

-- 
                           /
                          /__  __       
                         / )  )  ) )  /
Akinori -Aki- MUSHA aka / (_ /  ( (__(  @ idaemons.org / FreeBSD.org

"We're only at home when we're on the run, on the wing, on the fly"

In This Thread