[#6363] Re: rescue clause affecting IO loop behavior — ts <decoux@...>

>>>>> "D" == David Alan Black <dblack@candle.superlink.net> writes:

17 messages 2000/11/14
[#6367] Re: rescue clause affecting IO loop behavior — David Alan Black <dblack@...> 2000/11/14

Hello again --

[#6582] best way to interleaf arrays? — David Alan Black <dblack@...>

Hello --

15 messages 2000/11/26

[#6646] RE: Array Intersect (&) question — Aleksi Niemel<aleksi.niemela@...>

Ross asked something about widely known and largely ignored language (on

23 messages 2000/11/29
[#6652] RE: Array Intersect (&) question — rpmohn@... (Ross Mohn) 2000/11/29

aleksi.niemela@cinnober.com (Aleksi Niemel) wrote in

[#6723] Re: Array Intersect (&) question — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2000/12/01

> >Use a hash. Here's code to do both and more. It assumes that

[#6656] printing/accessing arrays and hashes — raja@... (Raja S.)

I'm coming to Ruby with a Python & Common Lisp background.

24 messages 2000/11/30

[ruby-talk:6050] Re: Time.local bug?

From: Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
Date: 2000-11-03 20:29:15 UTC
List: ruby-talk #6050
"Conrad Schneiker/Austin/Contr/IBM" <schneik@us.ibm.com> writes:

> .. To follow up on related notes, it seems like no separate check is made 
> to distinguish when leap seconds are specified in error versus when they 
> are legitimate. OTOH, since AFAIK, no other major relevant language 
> handles better, it's probably not worthwhile (relative to other things 
> that could be done for Ruby) to clean it up this "possible misfeature" (as 
> Matz put it), which might in retrospect be more favorably characterized as 
> a "pragmatic quirk", which seems to violate the principle of least 
> surprise (for most typical non-fully-informed people), but not the 
> principle of least meta-surprise (for people fully-informed about a given 
> issue).

What he said.


Dave

In This Thread

Prev Next