[#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: RCR: Add __file__ and __line__ methods to Method and Proc classes
Hi, > From: Yukihiro Matsumoto [mailto:matz@ruby-lang.org] > Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 2:49 AM > |The reserved words __FILE__ and __LINE__ cannot be used > |to extract the source location of a previously parsed block of > |ruby code, because the parser does a literal substitution of > the String > |or FixNum, respectively. So, at least in Ruby 1.6.8, Matz's > suggested > |technique of evaluating __FILE__ and __LINE__ in the binding > |of the block does not work. Please see: > | > |http://www.ruby-talk.org/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/21555 > > First of all, I said I would fix, but I haven't. Sorry for this. > > Secondly, I'm not sure whether it makes sense that method returns > single line number. They might be multi-line method. I'd like to > hear the comments from others. It seems reasonable for me at the point that you abstract multi-line method to be located at the beginning line of its definition. Do you mean it should return two line numbers; begin and end? Regards, // NaHi