[#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:5948] Re: Hash.new {block} / Hash#default_proc{,_set}

From: "Akinori MUSHA" <knu@...>
Date: 2000-10-30 17:46:12 UTC
List: ruby-talk #5948
Hey, Brian!

At Tue, 31 Oct 2000 01:47:09 +0900,
Brian F. Feldman <green@FreeBSD.org> wrote:
> I've done very little testing, but I think I've successfully implemented the 
> ability for a Hash to provide a default procedure rather than variable.
> 
> The only reasonable way I could think of doing this required on-the-fly 
> creation of a hash entry when a lookup fails -- otherwise, this feature is 
> nearly useless (does not make anything easier).
> 
> Here's the diff, my 3rd time modifying Ruby code itself.  Comments?

Neat!  I always wanted that.  I was about to do it myself, but you've
now done it.

Your next target will be Array#new(size) {...}, I presume? :>

I'd really like to see them merged. :)

-- 
                           /
                          /__  __
                         / )  )  ) )  /    and.or.jp / ruby-lang.org
Akinori -Aki- MUSHA aka / (_ /  ( (__(  @ idaemons.org / FreeBSD.org

"We're only at home when we're on the run, on the wing, on the fly"

In This Thread