[#1263] Draft of the updated Ruby FAQ — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>

33 messages 2000/02/08

[#1376] Re: Scripting versus programming — Andrew Hunt <andy@...>

Conrad writes:

13 messages 2000/02/15

[#1508] Ruby/GTK and the mainloop — Ian Main <imain@...>

17 messages 2000/02/19
[#1544] Re: Ruby/GTK and the mainloop — Yasushi Shoji <yashi@...> 2000/02/23

Hello Ian,

[#1550] Re: Ruby/GTK and the mainloop — Ian Main <imain@...> 2000/02/23

On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 02:56:10AM -0500, Yasushi Shoji wrote:

[#1516] Ruby: PLEASE use comp.lang.misc for all Ruby programming/technical questions/discussions!!!! — "Conrad Schneiker" <schneiker@...>

((FYI: This was sent to the Ruby mail list.))

10 messages 2000/02/19

[#1569] Re: Ruby: constructors, new and initialise — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>

The following message is a courtesy copy of an article

12 messages 2000/02/25

[ruby-talk:01412] Re: Bignum aset

From: Andrew Hunt <andy@...>
Date: 2000-02-16 01:51:57 UTC
List: ruby-talk #1412
	>But in Ruby, there's no overwrap between Fixnums and Bignums (on
	>purpose), so that
	>
	>  1073741823[2] = 1  # error! Fixnum
	>  1073741824[2] = 1  # ok! Bignum
	>
	>would be confusing.  I think we should introduce BitArray or something
	>for that purpose.

It wouldn't be so confusing if you could explictly create
a new Bignum:

	bucket = Bignum.new(200)

Could make a bit array starting off as 200 bytes long.  I suppose
it could be accidently coerced to a Fixnum if it were too small,
but I'd rather see bit access as part of the existing classes
instead of creating another one if possible.

/\ndy


--
Andrew Hunt, The Pragmatic Programmers, LLC.
Innovative Object-Oriented Software Development
web:   http://www.pragmaticprogrammer.com   email: andy@pragmaticprogrammer.com

In This Thread

Prev Next