[#796] Re: value of assignment (Re: Order of the value of an expression changed? (PR#579)) — Sean Chittenden <sean@...>
> sean@chittenden.org wrote:
Hi,
> |I have read the thread and I think this is a pretty bad change. I
Hi,
> > #BEGIN test.rb
Hi,
Hi --
Hi,
Hi --
Hi,
Hi,
Hi,
what about if attr_accessor :foo defined three methods - #foo, #foo=, and
> |What was wrong with having the receiver set the return value though?
Sean Chittenden <sean@chittenden.org> writes:
> > f = Foo.new()
>>>>> "J" == J Herre <jlst@gettysgroup.com> writes:
On 11 Feb 2003 at 11:13, Sean Chittenden wrote:
[#801] class of $1, $2 in 1.8.0 — dblack@...
Hi --
Hi,
Hi --
Hi,
Hi --
J.Herre <jlst@gettysgroup.com> writes:
Hi --
On Sat, 8 Feb 2003 06:52:17 +0900
Hi --
On Friday, February 7, 2003, at 03:15 PM, dblack@candle.superlink.net
[#851] Alternate GC ? — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...>
[#875] OpenSSL for Ruby 0.2.0-pre0 — Michal Rokos <michal@...>
Hi everybody!
[#889] Bob Jenkins' hashing implementation in Ruby — Mauricio Fern疣dez <batsman.geo@...>
>>>>> "M" == Mauricio Fern疣dez <Mauricio> writes:
On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 08:42:40PM +0900, ts wrote:
>>>>> "M" == Mauricio Fern疣dez <Mauricio> writes:
On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 10:03:47PM +0900, ts wrote:
>>>>> "M" == Mauricio Fern疣dez <Mauricio> writes:
On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 10:10:35PM +0900, ts wrote:
Hi,
[#890] String and (repost) MemLeak — Michal Rokos <michal@...>
Hi,
Hi,
Hi,
Hi,
Hi,
Re: class of $1, $2 in 1.8.0
Hi -- On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 nobu.nokada@softhome.net wrote: > Hi, > > At Fri, 7 Feb 2003 20:56:28 +0900, > dblack@candle.superlink.net wrote: > > Fri Dec 20 00:16:06 2002 Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu.nokada@softhome.net> > > > > * re.c (rb_reg_match_pre, rb_reg_match_post, match_to_a, > > match_select): return instances of same class as the original > > string. [ruby-dev:19119] > > > > which applies to the $1, $2... sub-matches. It caused scanf to blow > > up, and while I can fix it with a bunch of String.new() calls, I'm > > still left wondering what was wrong with having $1, $2... just be > > String objects. > > Formerly, they were not thourough. I'm not sure what you mean here. > Redefining very common names in different manner would often > cause unexpected results. I guess other names are better than > to_i and to_f. Doesn't that kind of cascading (i.e., subclassing and overriding) take place all the time? It seems very natural to me. Also, until 1.8.0 this wasn't a problem; it's only now that the class of the objects has changed. I'm still not sure what the reason is for the change. It can't be just to catch people like me who override methods :-) David -- David Alan Black home: dblack@candle.superlink.net work: blackdav@shu.edu Web: http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav