[#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 =

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:9712] Standard library reform

From: Aleksi Niemel<aleksi.niemela@...>
Date: 2001-01-22 12:19:44 UTC
List: ruby-talk #9712
This a "reply" to a thread which was [ruby-talk:9710] Re: 101 Misconceptions
About Dynamic Languages, but I changed the subject since we're clearly
departing from that discussion.

Jean MICHEL wrote:

> I  think too  many things  are classes  were most  of the  
> functionality should have  been put  in mixins:
> most operations  on arrays or hashes should have been
> put in mixins, and  class IO should have been a mixin

I have to second that feeling. Although it's just right place for a
disclaimer. I don't know enough about Ruby to feel urge to change things, or
propose a change. But I'd like to listen the voice of the designer(s).

Matz, do you feel the current functionality should be repartitioned into
mixins, and composed back together, retaining most of the semantics and
being as much compatible as previously?

> Actually  I think it  is still not too  late to 
> reform  Ruby by pushing the  functionality in  mixins.

This kind of change could be characterized as a major one, thus the timing
of the change would be for Ruby 2.0. However, if we're rushing to change
things early and manage to keep backwards compatibility I see no reason to
object the change for 1.7 series already.

Therefore I'd like to hear matz and other core developer's opinions when the
possible redesign should be done.

> As  far as I  can see this would change the language
> in a perfectly upward compatible way.

Well, I'm not all that sure. I guess we can keep most of the feature like
they're now, but I'd guess 

  ruby -e'p Array.ancestors'
  [Array, Enumerable, Object, Kernel]

would give different answer if we're adding some mix-ins. Having even one
snippet around which relies on this array's contents will make the change
incompatible. OTOH, as far as I can see the possible problems from this
change are rare and quite possibly harmless. And I think one can expect some
changes to the old source code even for minor version upgrades. (Says one
who spent some time fixing //p to //m yesterday... :)

	- Aleksi

In This Thread

Prev Next