[#796] Re: value of assignment (Re: Order of the value of an expression changed? (PR#579)) — Sean Chittenden <sean@...>

> sean@chittenden.org wrote:

33 messages 2003/02/06
[#798] Re: value of assignment (Re: Order of the value of an expression changed? (PR#579)) — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/02/06

Hi,

[#826] Re: value of assignment (Re: Order of the value of an expression changed? (PR#579)) — Sean Chittenden <sean@...> 2003/02/10

> |I have read the thread and I think this is a pretty bad change. I

[#827] Re: value of assignment (Re: Order of the value of an expression changed? (PR#579)) — nobu.nokada@... 2003/02/10

Hi,

[#828] Re: value of assignment (Re: Order of the value of an expression changed? (PR#579)) — Sean Chittenden <sean@...> 2003/02/11

> > #BEGIN test.rb

[#829] Re: value of assignment (Re: Order of the value of an expression changed? (PR#579)) — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/02/11

Hi,

[#830] Re: value of assignment (Re: Order of the value of an expression changed? (PR#579)) — Sean Chittenden <sean@...> 2003/02/11

> |What was wrong with having the receiver set the return value though?

[#834] Re: value of assignment (Re: Order of the value of an expression changed? (PR#579)) — Matt Armstrong <matt@...> 2003/02/11

Sean Chittenden <sean@chittenden.org> writes:

[#835] Re: value of assignment (Re: Order of the value of an expression changed? (PR#579)) — Sean Chittenden <sean@...> 2003/02/11

> > f = Foo.new()

[#801] class of $1, $2 in 1.8.0 — dblack@...

Hi --

31 messages 2003/02/07
[#802] Re: class of $1, $2 in 1.8.0 — nobu.nokada@... 2003/02/07

Hi,

[#803] Re: class of $1, $2 in 1.8.0 — dblack@... 2003/02/07

Hi --

[#804] Re: class of $1, $2 in 1.8.0 — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/02/07

Hi,

[#805] Re: class of $1, $2 in 1.8.0 — dblack@... 2003/02/07

Hi --

[#806] Re: class of $1, $2 in 1.8.0 — "J.Herre" <jlst@...> 2003/02/07

[#807] Re: class of $1, $2 in 1.8.0 — Matt Armstrong <matt@...> 2003/02/07

J.Herre <jlst@gettysgroup.com> writes:

[#808] Re: class of $1, $2 in 1.8.0 — dblack@... 2003/02/07

Hi --

[#809] Re: class of $1, $2 in 1.8.0 — Ryan Pavlik <rpav@...> 2003/02/07

On Sat, 8 Feb 2003 06:52:17 +0900

[#810] Re: class of $1, $2 in 1.8.0 — dblack@... 2003/02/07

Hi --

[#889] Bob Jenkins' hashing implementation in Ruby — Mauricio Fern疣dez <batsman.geo@...>

16 messages 2003/02/28
[#892] Re: Bob Jenkins' hashing implementation in Ruby — ts <decoux@...> 2003/03/01

>>>>> "M" == Mauricio Fern疣dez <Mauricio> writes:

[#893] Re: Bob Jenkins' hashing implementation in Ruby — Mauricio Fern疣dez <batsman.geo@...> 2003/03/01

On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 08:42:40PM +0900, ts wrote:

Re: class of $1, $2 in 1.8.0

From: dblack@...
Date: 2003-02-07 23:15:08 UTC
List: ruby-core #810
Hi --

On Sat, 8 Feb 2003, Ryan Pavlik wrote:

>         3)  If your semantics _do_ change, the error is actually
>             correct by definition: you're trying to do something
>             that's not allowed.  I'll bring up the Circle < Ellipse
>             example here; if you change the semantics of
>             Circle#setRadius to accept either (x, y; where x == y) or
>             (x), then there _is_ an error when you use (x, y; x != y).
>
>             Code should be smarter and take errors like this in
>             stride.

We're getting tied in unnecessary and irrelevant knots here.

My code *does* take everything in stride, and work correctly, in Ruby
1.6.8.  There is a change in Ruby 1.8.0 that makes it not work.  I
don't think I can be expected to have anticipated this change when I
wrote the code in August.

My code was not "trying to do something that's not allowed."  I did
not change the semantics of String#to_i; I subclassed String and
overrode a method.  String#to_i is completely unchanged.

>   *  Changing a method to do something illogical is possible but
>      questionable.

This is of course true, but very far afield from my question.

To bring us back on track: what we're discussing is not whether or how
to override methods in subclasses, but the relative merits of the two
behaviors of Regexp#match.  Either behavior can be accomodated; I
simply want to know the history of why the new one was chosen.


David

-- 
David Alan Black
home: dblack@candle.superlink.net
work: blackdav@shu.edu
Web:  http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav


In This Thread