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: dblack@...

Date: 2003-02-08 01:17:23 UTC

List: ruby-core #813

Hi --

On Sat, 8 Feb 2003, Ryan Pavlik wrote:

> On Sat, 8 Feb 2003 08:15:08 +0900
>
> Focusing on this change seems a bit of a red herring to me... if you've
> changed SpecializedString#to_i, is it not possible to use your new
> semantics?  Or is it not possible to provide the old behavior as a
> default? You _should_ predict problems a change in #to_i semantics might
> cause, because semantic changes usually cause problems.

That means that if in 2.0 we go back to having Regexp#match provide
String objects in all cases, I have to anticipate that too....  I'm
not expecting this kind of flip-flopping, but the point is you *can't*
code defensively against all changes in the core language.  That's why
we have mailing lists to keep informed and discuss changes :-)

> > >   *  Changing a method to do something illogical is possible but
> > >      questionable.
> >
> > This is of course true, but very far afield from my question.
>
> True, but I was addressing the quote "presumably the overridden version
> would do something different from the String version".  Such a change
> is illogical... if to_i no longer converts the string to an int, what
> does it do?

I don't want to get into the whole design of scanf, which isn't
relevant, but in brief, Scanf::FormatSpecifier#to_i(s) is a private
method which returns s.to_i unless self matches /^\s*%\*/, in which
case it returns nil.  (See source for more detail.)

Keep in mind that I was expecting this method *not* to be called :-)
What I was expecting was String#to_i.

David

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

Thread

In This Thread