[#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:5388] Re: Allowing *ary's in the middle of a camma separated list

From: "Brian F. Feldman" <green@...>
Date: 2000-10-10 16:03:12 UTC
List: ruby-talk #5388
"Akinori MUSHA" <knu@idaemons.org> wrote:
> 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 :)

I ran into this problem last week, and my workaround was to change a little 
what I was doing:

        def to_s
            border = '+---' * @width + "+\n"
            rowfmt = "| %-2s" * @width + "|\n" + border
            string = border.dup
            @board.each {|row|
                string.concat format(rowfmt, *row)
            }
            string
        end

Previously, I had the non-working (but, I guess, maybe cleaner) code as 
follows.  I'm going by memory because for some reason I didn't use CVS until 
I was late in the game of writing this ;):

        def to_s   
            border = '+---' * @width + "+\n"
            string = border.dup
            @board.each {|row|
                string.concat format("| %-2s" * @width + "|\n%s", *row, border)
            }
            string
        end

If it's not too much work, I'd also appreciate this ability.

--
 Brian Fundakowski Feldman           \  FreeBSD: The Power to Serve!  /
 green@FreeBSD.org                    `------------------------------'



In This Thread

Prev Next