ruby-core

Mailing Lists

ruby-list (For Ruby users, JA) ruby-dev (For Ruby developers, JA) ruby-core (For Ruby developers, EN) ruby-talk (For Ruby users, EN)

[#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,

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

Hi --

[#832] Re: value of assignment (Re: Order of the value of an expression changed? (PR#579)) — nobu.nokada@... 2003/02/11

Hi,

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

Hi --

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

Hi,

[#846] Re: value of assignment (Re: Order of the value of an expression changed? (PR#579)) — nobu.nokada@... 2003/02/11

Hi,

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

Hi,

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

what about if attr_accessor :foo defined three methods - #foo, #foo=, and

[#856] Re: value of assignment (Re: Order of the value of an expression changed? (PR#579)) — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/02/12

Hi,

[#858] Re: value of assignment (Re: Order of the value of an expression changed? (PR#579)) — "J.Herre" <jlst@...> 2003/02/12

On Tuesday, February 11, 2003, at 05:30 PM, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#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()

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

Hi,

[#847] Re: value of assignment (Re: Order of the value of an expression changed? (PR#579)) — Jim Freeze <jim@...> 2003/02/11

On Tuesday, 11 February 2003 at 20:40:05 +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#837] 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:

[#838] Re: value of assignment (Re: Order of the value of an expression changed? (PR#579)) — "J.Herre" <jlst@...> 2003/02/11

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

> Eg: this might be confusing to a new user. Requires you to know

[#839] Re: value of assignment (Re: Order of the value of an expression changed? (PR#579)) — ts <decoux@...> 2003/02/11

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

[#841] Re: value of assignment (Re: Order of the value of an expression changed? (PR#579)) — "J.Herre" <jlst@...> 2003/02/11

[#842] Re: value of assignment (Re: Order of the value of an expression changed? (PR#579)) — ts <decoux@...> 2003/02/11

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

[#853] Re: value of assignment (Re: Order of the value of an expression changed? (PR#579)) — "J.Herre" <jlst@...> 2003/02/11

On Monday, February 10, 2003, at 11:33 PM, ts wrote:

[#859] Re: value of assignment (Re: Order of the value of an expression changed? (PR#579)) — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2003/02/12

[#854] Re: value of assignment (Re: Order of the value of an expression changed? (PR#579)) — "Pit Capitain" <pit@...> 2003/02/11

On 11 Feb 2003 at 11:13, Sean Chittenden wrote:

[#860] Re: value of assignment (Re: Order of the value of an expression changed? (PR#579)) — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2003/02/12

[#862] Re: value of assignment (Re: Order of the value of an expression changed? (PR#579)) — "Pit Capitain" <pit@...> 2003/02/12

Hi Mathieu,

[#867] Re: value of assignment (Re: Order of the value of an expression changed? (PR#579)) — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2003/02/12

[#797] Re: value of assignment (Re: Order of the value of an expression changed? (PR#579)) — ts <decoux@...> 2003/02/06

>>>>> "S" == Sean Chittenden <sean@chittenden.org> writes:

[#799] Thread concurrency issue — Elias Karakoulakis <ekarak@...>

Hello all,

1 message 2003/02/06

[#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 --

[#811] Re: class of $1, $2 in 1.8.0 — Ryan Pavlik <rpav@...> 2003/02/08

On Sat, 8 Feb 2003 08:15:08 +0900

[#813] Re: class of $1, $2 in 1.8.0 — dblack@... 2003/02/08

Hi --

[#812] Re: class of $1, $2 in 1.8.0 — "J.Herre" <jlst@...> 2003/02/08

On Friday, February 7, 2003, at 03:15 PM, dblack@candle.superlink.net

[#814] Re: class of $1, $2 in 1.8.0 — dblack@... 2003/02/08

Hi --

[#817] Re: class of $1, $2 in 1.8.0 — Ryan Pavlik <rpav@...> 2003/02/08

On Sat, 8 Feb 2003 10:36:10 +0900

[#861] Re: class of $1, $2 in 1.8.0 — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2003/02/12

[#863] Re: class of $1, $2 in 1.8.0 — dblack@... 2003/02/12

Hi --

[#869] Re: class of $1, $2 in 1.8.0 — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2003/02/14

[#864] Re: class of $1, $2 in 1.8.0 — "J.Herre" <jlst@...> 2003/02/12

On Wednesday, February 12, 2003, at 05:23 AM,

[#865] Re: class of $1, $2 in 1.8.0 — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/02/12

Hi,

[#866] Re: class of $1, $2 in 1.8.0 — "J.Herre" <jlst@...> 2003/02/12

[#868] Re: class of $1, $2 in 1.8.0 — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/02/12

Hi,

[#815] Re: class of $1, $2 in 1.8.0 — nobu.nokada@... 2003/02/08

Hi,

[#816] Re: class of $1, $2 in 1.8.0 — dblack@... 2003/02/08

Hi --

[#818] Re: class of $1, $2 in 1.8.0 — nobu.nokada@... 2003/02/08

Hi,

[#819] Re: class of $1, $2 in 1.8.0 — dblack@... 2003/02/08

Hi --

[#820] Re: class of $1, $2 in 1.8.0 — nobu.nokada@... 2003/02/08

Hi,

[#821] Re: class of $1, $2 in 1.8.0 — dblack@... 2003/02/08

Hi --

[#822] Re: class of $1, $2 in 1.8.0 — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/02/08

Hi,

[#870] Re: class of $1, $2 in 1.8.0 — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/02/17

Hi,

[#871] Re: class of $1, $2 in 1.8.0 — dblack@... 2003/02/17

Hi --

[#823] Little Bug in cgi.rb — Florian Frank <flori@...>

Hello!

3 messages 2003/02/09

[#824] Re: Little Bug in cgi.rb — nobu.nokada@... 2003/02/09

Hi,

[#825] Re: Little Bug in cgi.rb — Florian Frank <flori@...> 2003/02/09

On Sun, 2003-02-09 at 15:33, nobu.nokada@softhome.net wrote:

[#843] Methods to get at Source References — Brent Roman <brent@...>

I'm trying to add the ability to view and edit source

1 message 2003/02/11

[#851] Alternate GC ? — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...>

6 messages 2003/02/11

[#852] Re: Alternate GC ? — Einar Karttunen <ekarttun@...> 2003/02/11

On 12.02 04:01, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:

[#873] Re: Alternate GC ? — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2003/02/22

[#880] Re: Alternate GC ? — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/02/24

Hi,

[#857] Re: Alternate GC ? — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/02/12

Hi,

[#874] Re: Alternate GC ? — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2003/02/22

[#872] RCR: Add file and line methods to Method and Proc classes — Brent Roman <brent@...>

Please consider the attached patch to

3 messages 2003/02/21

[#881] Re: RCR: Add __file__ and __line__ methods to Method and Proc classes — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/02/24

Hi,

[#882] Re: RCR: Add __file__ and __line__ methods to Method and Proc classes — "NAKAMURA, Hiroshi" <nahi@...> 2003/02/26

Hi,

[#875] OpenSSL for Ruby 0.2.0-pre0 — Michal Rokos <michal@...>

Hi everybody!

5 messages 2003/02/24

[#876] Re: OpenSSL for Ruby 0.2.0-pre0 — "Akinori MUSHA" <knu@...> 2003/02/24

Hi,

[#877] Re: OpenSSL for Ruby 0.2.0-pre0 — ts <decoux@...> 2003/02/24

>>>>> "A" == Akinori MUSHA <knu@iDaemons.org> writes:

[#878] Re: OpenSSL for Ruby 0.2.0-pre0 — Tanaka Akira <akr@...17n.org> 2003/02/24

In article <86bs11esag.wl%knu@iDaemons.org>,

[#879] Re: OpenSSL for Ruby 0.2.0-pre0 — Michal Rokos <michal@...> 2003/02/24

Hi,

[#883] Re: RCR: Add file and line methods to Method and Proc classes — Brent Roman <brent@...>

I think that, in general, a definition may start

2 messages 2003/02/28

[#884] Re: RCR: Add __file__ and __line__ methods to Method and Proc classes — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/02/28

Hi,

[#885] Internal node MEMO (fwd) — Robert Feldt <feldt@...>

Hi,

3 messages 2003/02/28

[#886] Re: Internal node MEMO (fwd) — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/02/28

Hi,

[#891] Re: Internal node MEMO (fwd) — Richard Kilmer <rich@...> 2003/03/01

Robert,

[#887] Re: Digest Articles 883-884 (1/1) (ruby-core ML) — Brent Roman <brent@...>

If you are not concerned about the unlikely possibility of

2 messages 2003/02/28

[#888] Re: RCR: Add __file__ and __line__ methods to Method and Proc classes — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/02/28

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:

[#894] Re: Bob Jenkins' hashing implementation in Ruby — ts <decoux@...> 2003/03/01

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

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

On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 10:03:47PM +0900, ts wrote:

[#896] Re: Bob Jenkins' hashing implementation in Ruby — ts <decoux@...> 2003/03/01

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

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

On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 10:10:35PM +0900, ts wrote:

[#904] Re: Bob Jenkins' hashing implementation in Ruby — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2003/03/02

[#898] Re: Bob Jenkins' hashing implementation in Ruby — nobu.nokada@... 2003/03/01

Hi,

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

On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 03:28:45AM +0900, nobu.nokada@softhome.net wrote:

[#900] Re: Bob Jenkins' hashing implementation in Ruby — nobu.nokada@... 2003/03/01

Hi,

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

On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 04:09:15AM +0900, nobu.nokada@softhome.net wrote:

[#908] Re: Bob Jenkins' hashing implementation in Ruby — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/03/03

Hi,

[#902] Re: Bob Jenkins' hashing implementation in Ruby — ts <decoux@...> 2003/03/02

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

[#903] Re: Bob Jenkins' hashing implementation in Ruby — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2003/03/02

[#905] Re: Bob Jenkins' hashing implementation in Ruby — Mauricio Fern疣dez <batsman.geo@...> 2003/03/02

On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 06:13:38AM +0900, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:

[#890] String and (repost) MemLeak — Michal Rokos <michal@...>

Hi,

12 messages 2003/02/28

[#906] Re: [Patch] String and (repost) MemLeak — nobu.nokada@... 2003/03/03

Hi,

[#907] Re: [Patch] String and (repost) MemLeak — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/03/03

Hi,

[#909] Re: [Patch] String and (repost) MemLeak — Michal Rokos <michal@...> 2003/03/03

Hi,

[#910] Re: [Patch] String and (repost) MemLeak — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/03/04

Hi,

[#911] Re: [Patch] String and (repost) MemLeak — Michal Rokos <michal@...> 2003/03/04

Hi,

[#912] Re: [Patch] String and (repost) MemLeak — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/03/04

Hi,

[#913] Re: [Patch] String and (repost) MemLeak — Michal Rokos <michal@...> 2003/03/04

Hi,

[#914] Re: [Patch] String and (repost) MemLeak — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2003/03/04

[#915] Re: [Patch] String and (repost) MemLeak — Michal Rokos <michal@...> 2003/03/04

Hi,

[#916] Re: [Patch] String and (repost) MemLeak — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/03/04

Hi,

[#917] Re: [Patch] String and (repost) MemLeak — Michal Rokos <michal@...> 2003/03/04

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

Re: class of $1, $2 in 1.8.0

From: "J.Herre" <jlst@...>

Date: 2003-02-08 01:02:15 UTC

List: ruby-core #812

On Friday, February 7, 2003, at 03:15 PM, dblack@candle.superlink.net 
wrote:

> 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.
>

I'm sure someone else on this list could provide you with a better 
explanation,
but I think this change supports the general principle of not demoting 
return
values unnecessarily.

This tends to expose more functionality in subclasses and results in 
less coding.
(Of course, this principle is built upon the more general assumption 
that a subclass
is going to include the functionality of its ancestors.)

It make sense that String#scan, String#slice, String#dup all return 
various parts of
the given string.  Would it make sense for SpecializeString#dup to 
return a
String?  Shouldn't #slice, #split and #scan do the same thing?

Why not assume that a substring of a string is the same kind of string? 
  What's
the advantage of the old behavior?

-J

Thread

In This Thread