[#600] A `File' is not a `IO'????? — clemens.hintze@...

17 messages 1999/08/10
[#602] Re: A `File' is not a `IO'????? — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 1999/08/10

Hi,

[#679] Documentation about RD? — Clemens Hintze <c.hintze@...>

Hi,

78 messages 1999/08/17
[#680] Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Documentation about RD?) — Toshiro Kuwabara <toshirok@...3.so-net.ne.jp> 1999/08/18

=begin

[#683] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Documenta tion about RD?) — clemens.hintze@... 1999/08/18

On 18 Aug, Toshiro Kuwabara wrote:

[#686] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Documenta tion about RD?) — gotoken@... (GOTO Kentaro) 1999/08/18

Hi,

[#687] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Docum enta tion about RD?) — clemens.hintze@... 1999/08/18

On 18 Aug, GOTO Kentaro wrote:

[#693] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Docum enta tion about RD?) — Toshiro Kuwabara <toshirok@...3.so-net.ne.jp> 1999/08/18

Hi,

[#695] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Docum enta tion about RD?) — Clemens Hintze <c.hintze@...> 1999/08/18

On 19 Aug, Toshiro Kuwabara wrote:

[#697] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Docum enta tion about RD?) — Toshiro Kuwabara <toshirok@...3.so-net.ne.jp> 1999/08/19

Hi,

[#703] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Docum enta tion about RD?) — Clemens Hintze <c.hintze@...> 1999/08/19

On 19 Aug, Toshiro Kuwabara wrote:

[#706] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Docum enta tion about RD?) — Toshiro Kuwabara <toshirok@...3.so-net.ne.jp> 1999/08/19

Hi,

[#681] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Documentation about RD?) — gotoken@... (GOTO Kentaro) 1999/08/18

Hi,

[#682] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Documentation about RD?) — Toshiro Kuwabara <toshirok@...3.so-net.ne.jp> 1999/08/18

Hi,

[#684] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Documentation about RD?) — TAKAHASHI Masayoshi <maki@...> 1999/08/18

Hi Tosh and all,

[#685] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Documentation about RD?) — gotoken@... (GOTO Kentaro) 1999/08/18

Hi,

[#689] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Documentation about RD?) — Toshiro Kuwabara <toshirok@...3.so-net.ne.jp> 1999/08/18

Hi,

[#694] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Documentation about RD?) — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 1999/08/18

Hi,

[#700] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Documentation about RD?) — Toshiro Kuwabara <toshirok@...3.so-net.ne.jp> 1999/08/19

Hi,

[#702] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Documentation about RD?) — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 1999/08/19

Hi,

[#704] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Docum entation about RD?) — Clemens Hintze <c.hintze@...> 1999/08/19

On 19 Aug, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#719] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Docum entation about RD?) — Toshiro Kuwabara <toshirok@...3.so-net.ne.jp> 1999/08/20

Hi,

[#720] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Docum entation about RD?) — clemens.hintze@... 1999/08/20

On 20 Aug, Toshiro Kuwabara wrote:

[#721] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Docum entation about RD?) — Toshiro Kuwabara <toshirok@...3.so-net.ne.jp> 1999/08/20

Hi,

[#722] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Docum entation about RD?) — clemens.hintze@... 1999/08/20

On 21 Aug, Toshiro Kuwabara wrote:

[#723] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Docum entation about RD?) — Toshiro Kuwabara <toshirok@...3.so-net.ne.jp> 1999/08/20

Hi,

[#737] RD with multi charset — Minero Aoki <aamine@...>

Hi, I'm Minero Aoki. This is my first mail in this mailling list.

26 messages 1999/08/22

[ruby-talk:00567] New feature request! :-)

From: clemens.hintze@...
Date: 1999-08-06 08:43:45 UTC
List: ruby-talk #567
Hi,

I have missed on feature of the Python parser since all the time I use
Ruby. Today I miss it again, so I want to propose its introducing.

	In Python, if I have to strings in the source, that comes one
	after the other, only separated by whitespaces, they will
	concatenated together by the parser. Some example:

		a = "Hello" "World"

	would become

		a = "HelloWorld"

	as
		a = "Hello"
		    "World"

	would too.

	That could be necessary if I have to concatenate very long
	strings together on runtime, because they only don't fit into 
	a source code line. For example:

		raise TypeError, "This is a very long string that " + 	
		     "doesn't fit very well on a single source line"

	Here I need the concatenation only, as the string is too long.
	That results in unecessary runtime penalties. After introducing
	that feature we could write:

		raise TypeError, "This is a very long string that " 	
		     "doesn't fit very well on a single source line"

	The parser would handle these as *one* long string. No
	performance penalties during runtime.

What do you think about?

\cle

In This Thread

Prev Next