[#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:5564] Re: local variables (nested, in-block, parameters, etc.)

From: "Conrad Schneiker/Austin/Contr/IBM" <schneik@...>
Date: 2000-10-16 05:50:41 UTC
List: ruby-talk #5564
Clemens Hintze wrote:

# In article <8sam7f$c9p$1@news.jump.net>, Conrad Schneiker wrote:
# >"Guy N. Hurst" wrote:
# 
# (...)
# 
# >I certainly think this is a good goal (although I have no idea of the 
best
# >way to do this for the long term).
# 
# Hmmm ... although I was following this thread too, I really cannot see 
what
# the problem is, right now. I thought, things were very clear, weren't 
they? 
# 
# If you see the '|'...'|' construct as block argument MARKERS, didn't the
# rest not become clear/consistent/logical? 

Sure--especially when you express it that way.  But something can be
clear/consistent/logical and still be tricky in practice (at least for 
some
of us). 

If I have not misunderstood the preceding thread, I still have to be
careful about the context of the surrounding scope (with respect to
the names of variables used there and as block parameters) to avoid
programming errors.

Conrad Schneiker
(This note is unofficial and subject to improvement without notice.)

In This Thread

Prev Next