[#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:6632] Re: Why is WeakRef#__getobj__ missing from the pickaxe book?

From: Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
Date: 2000-11-29 14:59:06 UTC
List: ruby-talk #6632
cjon@sapphire.engin.umich.edu (Cullen J O'neill) writes:

> My question is, isn't it a better idea to just get a real reference
> to the object using __getobj__?

There are two reasons I can think of, but neither is a show-stopper.

1. You're assuming an implementation, which might not be there
   forever.

2. You're taking a risk by regenerating the original object
   reference.

The downside to using WeakRef the conventional way is a small
overhead during method dispatch as it searches one level up the class
chain. On balance, I'd probably just use it the conventional way.


Dave

In This Thread