[#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: class of $1, $2 in 1.8.0
On Sat, 8 Feb 2003 dblack@candle.superlink.net wrote:
> Even if the new class is specialized, substrings of it may not be
> similarly specialized -- in which case, it's misleading to have them
> be instances of the new class. For example:
> class Name < String
> def initial
> scan(/[A-Z]/)[0]
> end
> end
> n = Name.new("David")
> i = n.initial # String in 1.6.8, Name in 1.8.0
> Here, it doesn't seem logical (to me) for an initial to be a Name
> object. (Yes, I could have done self[0].chr, but I need to illustrate
> this :-)
To me, it doesn't seem logical for the Name class to exist; a Name may be
"a kind of" String, but that doesn't mean it should be a subclass it...
here are a few ideas i've been cooking lately about software modeling (an
extension of my rants :-} about type checking):
What may appear like a subclass could actually be:
1. a mere "subtype", where "type" here means a set of expectations you
have about an object; for example, you may expect that the object matches
a certain Regexp.
2. a "use", as in, a set of (representational) meanings; at this level of
abstraction you'd distinguish Name from Title from
RGBPictureInTheShapeOfAString.
3. a "role", as in, a place in a relationship, a field in an object. This
would distinguish the main Title of a book from its alternate Title.
whereas:
0. a "subclass" adds behaviour (and/or fields in languages that require
their declaration) to a class, as a separate entity from the superclass,
but dependent on the superclass.
Which makes me doubt whether the example you are giving is applicable in
real programs (or: whether it is good practice to apply it), and in turn,
whether your point is valid.
(PS: and similarly anything involving Circle<Ellipse, unless a situation
is given in which a Circle subclass makes sense)
________________________________________________________________
Mathieu Bouchard http://artengine.ca/matju