[#8566] Visions for 2001/1.7.x development? — Robert Feldt <feldt@...>

Hi matz and other Ruby developers,

18 messages 2001/01/03
[#8645] Re: Visions for 2001/1.7.x development? — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2001/01/04

Hi,

[#8580] bug?? — jmichel@... (Jean Michel)

I don't understand the following behaviour:

19 messages 2001/01/03

[#8633] Interesting Language performance comparisons - Ruby, OCAML etc — "g forever" <g24ever@...>

13 messages 2001/01/04

[#8774] No :<, :>, etc. methods for Array — "Brian F. Feldman" <green@...>

So, why not include Comparable in Array by default? It shouldn't have any

28 messages 2001/01/07
[#8779] Re: No :<, :>, etc. methods for Array — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2001/01/07

Hi,

[#8780] Re: No :<, :>, etc. methods for Array — "Brian F. Feldman" <green@...> 2001/01/07

matz@zetabits.com (Yukihiro Matsumoto) wrote:

[#8781] Re: No :<, :>, etc. methods for Array — gotoken@... (GOTO Kentaro) 2001/01/07

In message "[ruby-talk:8780] Re: No :<, :>, etc. methods for Array"

[#8782] Re: No :<, :>, etc. methods for Array — "Brian F. Feldman" <green@...> 2001/01/07

gotoken@math.sci.hokudai.ac.jp (GOTO Kentaro) wrote:

[#8829] Sandbox (again) — wys@... (Clemens Wyss)

Hi,

20 messages 2001/01/08
[#8864] Re: Sandbox (again) — Clemens Hintze <c.hintze@...> 2001/01/08

On 8 Jan, Clemens Wyss wrote:

[#8931] String confusion — Anders Bengtsson <ndrsbngtssn@...>

Hello everyone,

21 messages 2001/01/09
[#8937] Re: String confusion — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2001/01/09

Hi,

[#8953] Please remove account from files — "Thomas Daniels" <westernporter@...>

Please take my e-mail address from your files and "CANCEL" my subscription to "Ruby-Talk". Ruby is not right for what I do. The "Bulk Mail" is overwhelming. Please, no more e-mail! Thank you! yours truly, Stan Daniels

14 messages 2001/01/09
[#8983] Re: Please remove account from files — John Rubinubi <rubinubi@...> 2001/01/10

On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Thomas Daniels wrote:

[#9020] time to divide -talk? (was: Please remove account from files) — Yasushi Shoji <yashi@...> 2001/01/10

At Wed, 10 Jan 2001 14:23:30 +0900,

[#9047] Re: time to divide -talk? (was: Please remov e account from files) — Aleksi Niemel<aleksi.niemela@...>

Yasushi Shoji:

27 messages 2001/01/10
[#9049] Re: time to divide -talk? — Yasushi Shoji <yashi@...> 2001/01/10

At Thu, 11 Jan 2001 00:20:45 +0900,

[#9153] what about this begin? — Anders Strandl Elkj誡 <ase@...> 2001/01/11

[#9195] Re: Redefining singleton methods — ts <decoux@...>

>>>>> "H" == Horst Duch=EAne?= <iso-8859-1> writes:

10 messages 2001/01/12

[#9242] polymorphism — Maurice Szmurlo <maurice@...>

hello

73 messages 2001/01/13

[#9279] Can ruby replace php? — Jim Freeze <jim@...>

When I read that ruby could be used to replace PHP I got really

15 messages 2001/01/14

[#9411] The Ruby Way — "Conrad Schneiker" <schneiker@...>

As a member of the "Big 8" newsgroups, "The Ruby Way" (of posting) is to

15 messages 2001/01/17

[#9462] Re: reading an entire file as a string — ts <decoux@...>

>>>>> "R" == Raja S <raja@cs.indiana.edu> writes:

35 messages 2001/01/17
[#9465] Re: reading an entire file as a string — Dave Thomas <Dave@...> 2001/01/17

raja@cs.indiana.edu (Raja S.) writes:

[#9521] Larry Wall INterview — ianm74@...

Larry was interviewed at the Perl/Ruby conference in Koyoto:

20 messages 2001/01/18
[#10583] Re: Larry Wall INterview — "greg strockbine" <gstrock@...> 2001/02/08

Larry Wall's interview is how I found out

[#9610] Re: 101 Misconceptions About Dynamic Languages — "Ben Tilly" <ben_tilly@...>

"Christian" <christians@syd.microforte.com.au> wrote:

13 messages 2001/01/20

[#9761] Re: 101 Misconceptions About Dynamic Languages — ts <decoux@...>

>>>>> "C" == Christoph Rippel <crippel@primenet.com> writes:

16 messages 2001/01/23

[#9792] Ruby 162 installer available — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>

15 messages 2001/01/24

[#9958] Re: Vim syntax files again. — "Conrad Schneiker" <schneik@...>

Hugh Sasse wrote:

14 messages 2001/01/26
[#10065] Re: Vim syntax files again. — Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@...> 2001/01/29

On Sat, 27 Jan 2001, Conrad Schneiker wrote:

[#9975] line continuation — "David Ruby" <ruby_david@...>

can a ruby statement break into multiple lines?

18 messages 2001/01/27
[#9976] Re: line continuation — Michael Neumann <neumann@...> 2001/01/27

On Sat, 27 Jan 2001, David Ruby wrote:

[#9988] Re: line continuation — harryo@... (Harry Ohlsen) 2001/01/28

>A statement break into mutliple lines if it is not complete,

[ruby-talk:8870] Re: No :<, :>, etc. methods for Array

From: "Ben Tilly" <ben_tilly@...>
Date: 2001-01-08 14:49:54 UTC
List: ruby-talk #8870
David Alan Black <dblack@candle.superlink.net> wrote:
>
>On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Ben Tilly wrote:
>
> > In your book I count 40 methods for hashes.  Matching the
> > full behaviour of arrays would be worse.
>
>Ummmm, not my book.  (Which is called "Law in Film" -- hey, I never
>thought I'd have an excuse to plug it here :-)  Other Dav*.  Or,
>more precisely, one of the other Dav*s.  (I guess I should find some
>comfort in the fact that even being named Clemens doesn't help you
>around here :-)

Erk.  Oops.

> > Tying out to the full behaviour takes a lot more work than
> > it needs to.  A few well-chosen modules could make this
> > much easier.
>
>But not every method would need to be redefined for every tying
>situation.  Again, I'm not objecting to the idea of some kind of
>modularization of this, though I am having some trouble thinking of
>a case where I would find it insufficient to redefine a few things
>like #[], #[]=, possibly has_key?, etc.

The idea of tie is to have a totally new implementation
that happens to have a similar interface to something
native.  Given that you want to have a new implementation,
you cannot inherit from the existing one.  Therefore you
either implement some minimal subset of the existing one,
or else you do rewrite a lot of (admittedly not complex)
methods.  Many of which exist to be syntactic sugar.

For new code you can just use the subset.  Where tie
becomes very handy is when you want to take a large body
of existing code, not have to look at it, but still
temporarily replace the implementation.

>I'm willing to be persuaded, just currently see this as a solution in
>search of a problem.
>
It is the same problem that Enumerable addresses.  Turn
building a complex and widely used interface into building
a rather small interface.  Many of the methods that are in
Array and Hash today are there as either syntactic sugar or
for convenience.  Why not make it easy for others to reuse
the convenience of that interface?

Cheers,
Ben
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

In This Thread

Prev Next