[#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 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