[#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))
> 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? Honestly? I don't care about new users particularly, only clean semantics and elegance: exceptions are ugly. The XML::Parser example above was something that I was typing out as a one liner while doing some testing and is something that I can work around. I actually think I may rename all of my = methods to be << or ^ methods that way the expected behavior isn't hampered by with the parser. XML::Parser is in fact, a hidden class that most users shouldn't use, but this came about as the inability to chain methods together has bit me yet again. I've probably run into this in no fewer than a dozen places in the last week and my toes are extremely sore from having run into this all over the place. Anyway, unless the powers that be change their minds on this and backout these commits, I think I'm done grumbling. :-/ -sc -- Sean Chittenden