[#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:5774] Re: Array#insert

From: "Conrad Schneiker/Austin/Contr/IBM" <schneik@...>
Date: 2000-10-23 07:59:12 UTC
List: ruby-talk #5774
Mark Slagell wrote:

# Sigh. I hadn't thought of how an underscore blends in with the
# surroundings. It certainly doesn't grab the eye the way ! and ? do.  So
# the dup'ed version, as you've written it, is easier to read.

Well, if it's any consolation, I brought up the ! issue a while back too. 

I am still unhappy with it, because it seems like it "should" follow your 
previously proposed scheme. It seems somewhat Perlish to me in terms of 
not having a good general idea of what you are looking at until you look 
up the pieces.

I guess now I would now most prefer the dup solution, and I retroactively 
would have preferred that originally the ! should indicate the 
((supposedly) more exceptional!) nondestructive version. (I think someone 
mentioned that the ! idea came from scheme, and IIRC it was also mentioned 
that unlike Ruby, scheme only/always uses ! for destructive methods.) 

If it weren't for backward compatibility, something a little more compact 
and a little more visually distinguished such as .!. that could be used 
instead of .dup. might be nice.

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

In This Thread

Prev Next