[#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:5786] Re: Array#insert

From: Mark Slagell <ms@...>
Date: 2000-10-23 12:26:42 UTC
List: ruby-talk #5786
Conrad Schneiker/Austin/Contr/IBM wrote:
> 
> 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.)

Hmmm....

~/dl/ruby-1.6.1:>diff parse.c~ parse.c
6894c6894
<     if ((c == '!' || c == '?') && is_identchar(tok()[0]) && !peek('=')) {
---
>     if ((c == '!' || c == '?' || c == '~') && is_identchar(tok()[0]) && !peek('=')) {

In This Thread

Prev Next