[#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:5639] Re: lint?

From: "Swit" <swit@...>
Date: 2000-10-17 14:10:04 UTC
List: ruby-talk #5639
Yes, a typo is exactly what I was originally asking about, especially in
error-handling code that might not be executed for years.  'ruby -w' didn't
catch my problem.  A lint-like program doesn't need to know for sure that
there is a problem; it just needs to point out suspicious things even if
they may be legal.  If there is only one "NavgationDefinition" in the
program, it is likely a typo, even if technically it could be defined
elsewhere.

The lint programs for Python don't work very well, so it is likely that it
will be hard to write a useful lint program for Ruby.

Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@zetabits.com> wrote in message
news:E13lTM5-0003CS-00@ev.netlab.zetabits.co.jp...
> In message "[ruby-talk:5631] Re: lint?"
>     on 00/10/17, "Franz GEIGER" <fgeiger@datec.at> writes:
> |> I'm afraid it requires static type information, which Ruby does not
have.
> |Does it really? What about typos? E.g. someone "defines" a param
> |NavigationDefinition but refers to it as NavgationDefinition. Why do we
have
> |to find such errors at runtime?
> For typos, `ruby -w' may help.  But Ruby is really a dynamic language.
> You can even define everything at runtime.  So the interpreter cannot
> know FOR SURE whether your program has error or not until runtime.
> With -w option, Ruby tells you some suspicious occasions.
>
> matz.




In This Thread