[#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:5911] Re: [RFC] Towards a new synchronisation primitive

From: hipster <hipster@...4all.nl>
Date: 2000-10-27 13:19:23 UTC
List: ruby-talk #5911
On Fri, 27 Oct 2000  21:26:37 +0900, Dave Thomas wrote:
> > I'd say the point of definition of a method is at the end of the def
> > expression, before any method body expressions. Therefore only the
> > method body is subject to sync-behaviour.
> 
> I can see cases where that wouldn't work, such as:
> 
>    class RingBuffer
> 
>       def sync initialize
>          @inPtr = @outPtr = 0
>       end
> 
>       def sync printBuff(from = @inPtr, to = @outPtr)
>         # ...
>       end
>    end
> 
> If synchronization only applies to the method body, its possible that
> from gets assigned @inPtr in one state, then something else runs, and
> to gets @outPtr in another state. Not critical in this case, but I
> guess it could be.

You're absolutely right. My point-of-definition argument has nothing
to do with this. Parameter initializers should be considered a kind of
'method constructors', and should be part of the same method synch
scope.

	thanks,
	Michel

In This Thread