[#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,

[#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()

[#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 --

[#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:

Re: class of $1, $2 in 1.8.0

From: dblack@...
Date: 2003-02-12 13:23:07 UTC
List: ruby-core #863
Hi --

On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:

>
> 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):
[...]
> 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.

Keep in mind that my point has nothing to do with advocacy of
inheriting from String.  It's about what happens when one *does*
inherit from String.  The "whether to do it" question is very
interesting to me (I started a thread on precisely that question on
ruby-talk yesterday), but it's tangential to the question under
discussion here.

What you're saying amounts to: if I can't think of a really great
example of this, then anyone who does it deserves to have the core
language shift under their feet.  Similarly, if inheriting from String
is a bad idea, then the only reason for the change we're discussing is
to punish people who've done it.  Somehow I don't think that's the
whole story :-)


David

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


In This Thread