[#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:5607] Re: passing single or multiple strings.

From: gotoken@... (GOTO Kentaro)
Date: 2000-10-16 18:45:37 UTC
List: ruby-talk #5607
In message "[ruby-talk:5600] passing single or multiple strings."
    on 00/10/17, Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@dmu.ac.uk> writes:

>    def something(args)
>        *bunch_of_args = args
>        bunch_of_args.each do
>            ...
>        end
>    end
>
>That's fine, and quite useful; if args are Strings and I just get one
>string then I don't get caught out by wanting to write:
>
>    case args.type
>    when Array
>       ...
>    when String
>       ...
>    end
>
>which does not work.  (You have to use if args.type == Array...elsif....
>for that.)

`type' is not needed because `Klass === obj' is identical to
`obj.is_a? Klass.'

    def something(args)
      case args
      when Array
        :Array
      when String
        :String
      end
    end

    p something([]) #=> :Array
    p something("") #=> :String

>But this is quite different:
>
>    def something(*bunch_of_args)
>        bunch_of_args.each do
>            ...
>        end
>    end
>
>because then things are not "shelled" out and if I pass in an Array I get
>a nested Array.  something(["x", "y"]) => bunch_of_args == [["x", "y"]]
>
>So what method of Array, if any, will do this "shelling" for me?

How about something(*["x", "y"]);

    def something(*bunch_of_args)
      bunch_of_args
    end

    p something(*["x", "y"]) #=> ["x", "y"]

-- gotoken

In This Thread