[#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:5752] Re: Some newbye question

From: ts <decoux@...>
Date: 2000-10-22 11:50:41 UTC
List: ruby-talk #5752
>>>>> "G" == Guy N Hurst <gnhurst@hurstlinks.com> writes:

 I see 2 problems with your idea

G>  		block{|a~,b~| 

 if someone has defined a def 'block', it will have a problem no ?

G> 			b # block variable, has value 12
G> 			a # block variable, has value 24

 You can't move the block with cut/paste because the value of 'a', and 'b'
depend of the previous variable 'a' and 'b', no ?

G> 			b = 24
G> 			a = 36 

G> Could this be implemented?

 You can perhaps implement a 'let' if you re-use an existing keyword like
 for example 'do'

 Something like this :

pigeon% cat b.rb
#!./ruby
def toto(a)
   p "1 #{a}"
   do(a = 24, b = 2)
      p "2 #{a}, #{b}"
      do a = a + 2, b = a + 10
         p "3 #{a}, #{b}"
      end
      p "4 #{a}, #{b}"
   end
   p "5 #{a}"
end
toto(12)
pigeon% 

pigeon% b.rb
"1 12"
"2 24, 2"
"3 26, 34"
"4 24, 2"
"5 12"
pigeon% 

 You have no incompatibilities, because you can't write actually
 'do(a) ... end'

 Unfortunately :
  * now you have 3 'do' :-(
  * you need 2 new nodes



Guy Decoux

In This Thread