[#927] UnboundMethod#to_proc — Dave Thomas <dave@...>
I'm wondering what I can do with a Proc generated by
17 messages
2003/04/06
[#929] Re: UnboundMethod#to_proc
— "Chris Pine" <nemo@...>
2003/04/06
----- Original Message -----
[#934] Re: UnboundMethod#to_proc
— Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...>
2003/04/06
[#940] Re: UnboundMethod#to_proc
— chr_news@...
2003/04/07
>
[#941] Re: UnboundMethod#to_proc
— Dave Thomas <dave@...>
2003/04/07
>> If they have diverging interfaces such that the contracts conflict
[#936] docs on implementation of ruby and/or ruby-gc ? — Ruben Vandeginste <Ruben.Vandeginste@...>
4 messages
2003/04/07
[#964] Range in logical context — Dave Thomas <dave@...>
If I run
7 messages
2003/04/16
[#965] Re: Range in logical context
— Mauricio Fern疣dez <batsman.geo@...>
2003/04/16
On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 06:10:40AM +0900, Dave Thomas wrote:
[#973] problem with rb_rescue2() ? — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...>
5 messages
2003/04/19
Re: UnboundMethod#to_proc
From:
Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...>
Date:
2003-04-06 18:04:10 UTC
List:
ruby-core #934
On Sun, 6 Apr 2003, Chris Pine wrote: > Then does it make any sense for UnboundMethod#to_proc to be defined? > (This is another reason why it feels like Method should subclass > UnboundMethod and not the other way around...) If they have diverging interfaces such that the contracts conflict with each other, then maybe they should two subclasses with a common superclass, possibly Object or possibly a new class representing whatever they might have in common. ________________________________________________________________ Mathieu Bouchard http://artengine.ca/matju