[#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
J.Herre <jlst@gettysgroup.com> writes:
> On Friday, February 7, 2003, at 08:05 AM, dblack@candle.superlink.net
> wrote:
>
>> class SpecializedString < String
>> def to_i(s)
>> # specialized overriding of to_i
>> end
>> end
>>
>> s = SpecializedString.new("12345")
>> m = /(\d\d)/.match(s)
>> n = m[1].to_i
>> p n * 10
>
> This regexp change is actually very cool. I've got some ugly code
> that I can fix up as a result of this change.
>
> FWIW I think your example argues more strongly for adding
> multi-dispatch to ruby (or maybe just adopting a policy of not
> changing the semantics of well-known methods in subclasses) than for
> backing out this change.
At the risk of a "me too" post, I have the same thoughts. Code should
be able to do tests for object.kind_of?(String) and expect the methods
of String to be present with similar semantics.
--
matt