[#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:5464] Re: Ruby Book Eng. tl, 9.8.11 -- seishitsu ?

From: Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@...>
Date: 2000-10-12 15:28:23 UTC
List: ruby-talk #5464
On Fri, 13 Oct 2000, Jon Babcock wrote:

> Here is the current, still slightly awkward, version:
> 
> [ Due to the nature of C, there is no there is no need to fetch the 2nd
> and 3rd arguments if func2 doesn't need them. ]
> 
> I say "slightly awkward" because, on first reading, it seems to be
> saying the obvious, i.e., "There is no need for X if there is no need
> for X."


Assuming that "there is no" has been duplicated you have:
> [ Due to the nature of C, there is no need to fetch the 2nd
> and 3rd arguments if func2 doesn't need them. ]

I think the clarity is reduced by the double negative.  

Due to the nature of C, it is only necessary to fetch the 2nd
and 3rd arguments if func2 needs them.]

The other question raised is "Which nature of C are we talking
about? VARARGS?"

	Hugh
	hgs@dmu.ac.uk


In This Thread