[#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:6602] Re: Relational operators in Ruby.

From: Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
Date: 2000-11-28 08:30:46 UTC
List: ruby-talk #6602
"Conrad Schneiker" <schneik@us.ibm.com> writes:

> While I think the idea of supporting Icon-style goal-directed evaluation 
> is probably a very worthy and powerful capability to add to Ruby, I would 
> prefer to see such a "mode" be more explicitly indicated. I think this 
> would facilitate "human pattern recognition" with respect to reading Ruby 
> code, and would largely avoid a potential big source of likely 
> confusion--especially for Ruby users/fans at the "sub-master" level, which 
> is probably the predominant population for successful languages with large 
> followings, such as Perl and Python. The original proposal seems (IMHO) a 
> little too close to the overly context sensitive (or as some say, the 
> "read only" or "self-encrypting") character of Perl code.

Conrad:

A worthy goal, I agree, but can you think of any time where this
scheme would confuse the neophyte (objection: calls for speculation)?
I was thinking it was actually quite nice because it sits fairly
transparently on top of the existing semantics, but I'm sure I missed
something.


Regards


Dave

In This Thread

Prev Next