[#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
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