[#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: value of assignment (Re: Order of the value of an expression changed? (PR#579))
> |What was wrong with having the receiver set the return value though?
>
> Consistency. Ruby provides illusion of assignment for attribute
> updating methods (e.g. foo=), and I thought the illusion should be
> complete as much as possible.
I must not be getting it.
class Foo
attr_accessor(:a)
attr_reader(:b)
public
def b=(b)
@b = b
return(b/2)
end
def initialize()
@a = 42
@b = 42
end
end
f = Foo.new()
i = f.a = 42 # i == 42
i = f.b = 42 # i == 42 (now it's 42, but should be 28)
b=() modifies the return value. Is that what's inconsistent? That
the return value is different than argument? Not to quote Dave, but
this seems a little too "mother knows best" given that the default
does return 42 and the only time it isn't 42 is when the author meant
for it to be something other than 42. Is it a consistency issue for
people who don't use return()? If that's the case, then that's just
sloppy/poor programing practices and something that I'd love to see
prevented when -w is thrown on.
-sc
--
Sean Chittenden