[#14696] Inconsistency in rescuability of "return" — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...>

Why can you not rescue return, break, etc when they are within

21 messages 2008/01/02
[#14699] Re: Inconsistency in rescuability of "return" — Gary Wright <gwtmp01@...> 2008/01/02

[#14738] Enumerable#zip Needs Love — James Gray <james@...>

The community has been building a Ruby 1.9 compatibility tip list on

15 messages 2008/01/03
[#14755] Re: Enumerable#zip Needs Love — Martin Duerst <duerst@...> 2008/01/04

Hello James,

[#14772] Manual Memory Management — Pramukta Kumar <prak@...>

I was thinking it would be nice to be able to free large objects at

36 messages 2008/01/04
[#14788] Re: Manual Memory Management — Marcin Raczkowski <mailing.mr@...> 2008/01/05

I would only like to add that RMgick for example provides free method to

[#14824] Re: Manual Memory Management — MenTaLguY <mental@...> 2008/01/07

On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 15:49:30 +0900, Marcin Raczkowski <mailing.mr@gmail.com> wrote:

[#14825] Re: Manual Memory Management — "Evan Weaver" <evan@...> 2008/01/07

Python supports 'del reference', which decrements the reference

[#14838] Re: Manual Memory Management — Marcin Raczkowski <mailing.mr@...> 2008/01/08

Evan Weaver wrote:

[#14911] Draft of some pages about encoding in Ruby 1.9 — Dave Thomas <dave@...>

Folks:

24 messages 2008/01/10

[#14976] nil encoding as synonym for binary encoding — David Flanagan <david@...>

The following just appeared in the ChangeLog

37 messages 2008/01/11
[#14977] Re: nil encoding as synonym for binary encoding — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/01/11

Hi,

[#14978] Re: nil encoding as synonym for binary encoding — Dave Thomas <dave@...> 2008/01/11

[#14979] Re: nil encoding as synonym for binary encoding — David Flanagan <david@...> 2008/01/11

Dave Thomas wrote:

[#14993] Re: nil encoding as synonym for binary encoding — Dave Thomas <dave@...> 2008/01/11

[#14980] Re: nil encoding as synonym for binary encoding — Gary Wright <gwtmp01@...> 2008/01/11

[#14981] Re: nil encoding as synonym for binary encoding — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/01/11

Hi,

[#14995] Re: nil encoding as synonym for binary encoding — David Flanagan <david@...> 2008/01/11

Yukihiro Matsumoto writes:

[#15050] how to "borrow" the RDoc::RubyParser and HTMLGenerator — Phlip <phlip2005@...>

Core Rubies:

17 messages 2008/01/13
[#15060] Re: how to "borrow" the RDoc::RubyParser and HTMLGenerator — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net> 2008/01/14

On Jan 13, 2008, at 08:54 AM, Phlip wrote:

[#15062] Re: how to "borrow" the RDoc::RubyParser and HTMLGenerator — Phlip <phlip2005@...> 2008/01/14

Eric Hodel wrote:

[#15073] Re: how to "borrow" the RDoc::RubyParser and HTMLGenerator — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net> 2008/01/14

On Jan 13, 2008, at 20:35 PM, Phlip wrote:

[#15185] Friendlier methods to compare two Time objects — "Jim Cropcho" <jim.cropcho@...>

Hello,

10 messages 2008/01/22

[#15194] Can large scale projects be successful implemented around a dynamic programming language? — Jordi <mumismo@...>

A good article I have found (may have been linked by slashdot, don't know)

8 messages 2008/01/24

[#15248] Symbol#empty? ? — "David A. Black" <dblack@...>

Hi --

24 messages 2008/01/28
[#15250] Re: Symbol#empty? ? — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/01/28

Hi,

Re: Deletion of element sequence in an Array

From: "Gavin Kistner" <gavin.kistner@...>
Date: 2008-01-29 18:51:22 UTC
List: ruby-core #15304
From: Wolfgang N疆asi-Donner [mailto:ed.odanow@wonado.de] 
> Unfortunately your answer raises a new question. I understand
> the reason for changing "Array#[]=" in respect to "nil", because
> for other values the value is inserted. Now a see a new value
> "[]", which acts as exception.

I don't think this acts as an exception at all.
  Array#[range] = Array
replaces the value(s) in the range with the values in the supplied array. If there are more items in the supplied array, the receiver is grown. If there are less, it is shrunk. If the supplied array is zero, all the values in that subsection are removed.

irb(main):008:0> a = *0..10
=> [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]
irb(main):009:0> a[3..6] = [99,99,99,99,99,99,99,99]
=> [99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99]
irb(main):010:0> a
=> [0, 1, 2, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 7, 8, 9, 10]

Are you saying that [] (the empty) array acts as an exception, or that using an array as the right side of Array#[range]= is weird? Would you expect this:
  a = [0,1,2,3,4]
  a[ 1..3 ] = [:a, :b, :c ]
  p a
  #=> [0, [:a, :b, :c ], [:a, :b, :c ], [:a, :b, :c ], 4 ]
?

Although I understand that it makes the intricacies of Ruby harder to learn, I agree with Matz when he has said (I think) that he favors convenience over consistency. I like the current behavior, personally.


In This Thread