[#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:5956] Re: Hash.new {block} / Hash#default_proc{,_set}

From: matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
Date: 2000-10-30 23:05:39 UTC
List: ruby-talk #5956
Hi,

In message "[ruby-talk:5947] Hash.new {block} / Hash#default_proc{,_set}"
    on 00/10/31, "Brian F. Feldman" <green@FreeBSD.org> writes:

|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?

Three points:

  * currently each internal structure sizes are made strictly less
    than 5 pointer size for space efficiency.

  * your on-the-fly entry creation idea sound reasonable; but I think
    we need to discuss it before merging it.

  * we need to inspect cost/benefit between this patch and Hash#fetch
    which already takes a block to give a value for non existing
    entry.

Thank you anyway.

							matz.

In This Thread