[#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:6605] Re: Question on sort!

From: Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
Date: 2000-11-28 15:02:23 UTC
List: ruby-talk #6605
matz@zetabits.com (Yukihiro Matsumoto) writes:

> OK, OK.  Let's discuss.
> 
> The principle above have both pro and con.
> 
>   (+) consistency.
>   (-) returning nil somtimes breaks method chains.
> 
> The latter can be avoided if one follows the no-bang-method-chain
> rule.  But I don't force you to agree with me (yet ;-).

There's another way to view consistency: sort and sort! might be
expected to return the same type of thing.

How often is the fact that ! methods return nil actually used in
practice (a genuine question). Perhaps that overall functionality
might be up for review.


Dave

In This Thread