[#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))
On Monday, February 10, 2003, at 08:01 PM, Sean Chittenden wrote: > Which is a fundamental shift away from operators as methods and why > I'm kinda up in arms about this philosophical change. In an OO world, > I expect i=(f.b=(42)). > I've tasted the Kool-Aid and changed my mind about this (even though it bit me.) The new behavior is more consistent, prettier, and much easier to explain. * Assignment methods are already unlike other methods because they are treated with special syntactic sugar. (eg i = f.b = a) * Top level assignment operator is conceptually hard to map into a method call. * Neither technique guarantees: (f.b=a) == (f.b) * Most users are accustomed to right to left assignment and your eye tends to give = extra weight. * Might be confusing to count on assignment having side effects. Eg: this might be confusing to a new user. Requires you to know details of parser class. > root = XML::Parser.new.string = (str).root Maybe it's possible to automatically create or infer set_ aliases? root = XML::Parser.new.set_string( str ).root Automatic variant of string=() when no other set_string present?