[#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:5450] Re: Object.foo, setters and so on

From: Shugo Maeda <shugo@...>
Date: 2000-10-12 07:10:03 UTC
List: ruby-talk #5450
Hi,

At Wed, 11 Oct 2000 17:42:21 +0900,
matz@zetabits.com (Yukihiro Matsumoto) wrote:
> |>   def foo=(v)
> |>     ...
> |>   end
> |>   self.foo=5
> |> 
> |> would not raise an error.  Making
> |
> |Is this Object#foo= public method?
> 
> It will be in 1.6.2 (or the latest CVS).

$ ruby-cvs -S irb
irb(main):001:0> VERSION
"1.6.2"
irb(main):002:0> def foo=(x)
irb(main):003:1>   p x
irb(main):004:1> end
nil
irb(main):005:0> self.foo = 1
1
nil
irb(main):006:0> "bar".foo = 2
2
nil
irb(main):008:0> Object.public_methods.include?("foo=")
true

I think it's not consistent with other top-level methods.
It's enough to print a warning message on the definition, isn't
it?

Shugo


In This Thread