[#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:5852] Re: Array#insert rehashed

From: Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
Date: 2000-10-25 17:21:25 UTC
List: ruby-talk #5852
Aleksi Niemel<aleksi.niemela@cinnober.com> writes:

> I hope I don't let you down by writing a couple.

Nope - they were a good couple.

> As an idiom Array#[pos,len]= works ok, but have couple of traps. First, it
> autoflattens. Second it doesn't work intuitively with negative
> indices.

True 'nuff, although

   b = [1,2,3]
   a[1,0] = [b]

Does what you'd want.

Not being able to extend at the end is a problem, but then there's
always #push

> it enhances code readibility:
> 
>   ary, other = [1,2,3], [4,5]
>   ary[1,0] = other      # vs.
>   ary.insert(1, other)

I personally find the [] form pretty readable, but I'm funny that
way. I tend to view the function-style more Perl-like.

A good side-effect of the functional form is that it can return the
array (whereas the assignment returns the rvalue) so you can chain
calls

  a.insert(5, x).insert(2, y)

However, can I make a suggestion?

Let's not implement this in C code, but in a Ruby-language module. Let 
people use it that way and get experience with it before making code
changes in the interpreter.

Regards


Dave

In This Thread