[#20675] RCR: non-bang equivalent to []= — Tobias Reif <tobiasreif@...>

Hi,

49 messages 2001/09/01
[#20774] Re: RCR: non-bang equivalent to []= — Tobias Reif <tobiasreif@...> 2001/09/03

I wrote:

[#20778] Re: RCR: non-bang equivalent to []= — Kevin Smith <kevinbsmith@...> 2001/09/03

--- Tobias Reif <tobiasreif@pinkjuice.com> wrote:

[#20715] oreilly buch von matz - website online — markus jais <info@...>

hi

43 messages 2001/09/02
[#20717] Re: OReilly Ruby book has snail on cover — ptkwt@...1.aracnet.com (Phil Tomson) 2001/09/02

Actually, thanks for posting it here. I was trying to search OReilly's

[#20922] Re: OReilly Ruby book has snail on cover — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2001/09/05

On Mon, 3 Sep 2001, Phil Tomson wrote:

[#20768] Minor cgi.rb question — "Hal E. Fulton" <hal9000@...>

I don't have much experience with

25 messages 2001/09/03

[#20770] Calling member methods from C++ — jglueck@... (Bernhard Glk)

Some quetsions have been solved for me, but my message system does not

12 messages 2001/09/03

[#20976] destructor — Frank Sonnemans <ruby@...>

Does Ruby have a destructor as in C++?

25 messages 2001/09/07

[#21218] Ruby objects <-> XML: anyone working on this? — senderista@... (Tobin Baker)

Are there any Ruby analogs of these two Python modules (xml_pickle,

13 messages 2001/09/15

[#21296] nested require files need path internally — Bob Gustafson <bobgus@...>

Version: 1.64

29 messages 2001/09/18
[#21298] Re: nested require files need path internally — David Alan Black <dblack@...> 2001/09/18

Hello --

[#21302] Re: nested require files need path internally — Bob Gustafson <bobgus@...> 2001/09/18

On Tue, 18 Sep 2001, David Alan Black wrote:

[#21303] Re: nested require files need path internally — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2001/09/18

Hi,

[#21306] Re: nested require files need path internally — Lars Christensen <larsch@...> 2001/09/18

On Tue, 18 Sep 2001, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#21307] Re: nested require files need path internally — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2001/09/18

Hi,

[#21331] Re: nested require files need path internally — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2001/09/18

> The big difference is C++ search done in compile time, Ruby search

[#21340] Re: nested require files need path internally — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2001/09/18

Hi,

[#21353] Re: nested require files need path internally — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2001/09/18

On Wed, 19 Sep 2001, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#21366] Re: nested require files need path internally — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2001/09/19

Hi,

[#21368] Re: nested require files need path internally — "Julian Fitzell" <julian-ml@...4.com> 2001/09/19

On 19/09/2001 at 10:12 AM matz@ruby-lang.org wrote:

[#21376] Re: nested require files need path internally — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2001/09/19

Hi,

[#21406] Re: nested require files need path internally — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2001/09/19

On Wed, 19 Sep 2001, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#21315] Suggestions for new CGI lib — anders@... (Anders Johannsen)

From the comp.lang.ruby thread "Minor cgi.rb question" (2001-09-03), I

21 messages 2001/09/18

[#21413] Ruby/objects book in style of The Little Lisper — Brian Marick <marick@...>

I fell in love with Lisp in the early 80's. Back then, I read a book called

36 messages 2001/09/19
[#21420] Re: Ruby/objects book in style of The Little Lisper — Christopher Sawtell <csawtell@...> 2001/09/20

On 20 Sep 2001 06:19:44 +0900, Brian Marick wrote:

[#21479] Re: Ruby/objects book in style of The Little Lisper — Kevin Smith <kevinbsmith@...> 2001/09/21

--- Christopher Sawtell <csawtell@paradise.net.nz> wrote:

[#21491] SV: Re: Ruby/objects book in style of The Little Lisper — "Mikkel Damsgaard" <mikkel_damsgaard@...> 2001/09/21

[#21494] Re: SV: Re: Ruby/objects book in style of The Little Lisper — Kevin Smith <kevinbsmith@...> 2001/09/21

--- Mikkel Damsgaard <mikkel_damsgaard@mailme.dk> wrote:

[#21510] Re: SV: Re: Ruby/objects book in style of The Little Lisper — Todd Gillespie <toddg@...> 2001/09/22

On Sat, 22 Sep 2001, Kevin Smith wrote:

[#21514] Re: SV: Re: Ruby/objects book in style of The Little Lisper — Kevin Smith <kevinbsmith@...> 2001/09/22

--- Todd Gillespie <toddg@mail.ma.utexas.edu> wrote:

[#21535] irb — Fabio <fabio.spelta@...>

Hello. :) I'm new here, and I have not found an archive of the previous

15 messages 2001/09/22

[#21616] opening a named pipe? — "Avdi B. Grimm" <avdi@...>

I'm having trouble reading from a named pipe in linux. basicly, I'm

12 messages 2001/09/24

[#21685] manipulating "immutable" objects such as Fixnum from within callbacks & al... — Guillaume Cottenceau <gc@...>

Hello,

15 messages 2001/09/25

[#21798] Ruby internal (guide to the source) — "Benoit Cerrina" <benoit.cerrina@...>

Hi,

22 messages 2001/09/28

[ruby-talk:20834] Re: RCR: non-bang equivalent to []=

From: "Conrad Schneiker" <schneiker@...>
Date: 2001-09-04 02:29:44 UTC
List: ruby-talk #20834
"Hal E. Fulton" <hal9000@hypermetrics.com> wrote:
> From: Tobias Reif <tobiasreif@pinkjuice.com>
[...]
> > Kevin,
> >
> >
> > > Many of the Array methods are already bang-type methods,
> > > even though they don't have the bang: clear, delete,
> > > delete_at, delete_if, fill, pop, push, replace, shift,
> > > unshift.
> >
> >
> > I'd like to have bang and non-bang versions of each and every method.
> > The names should just differ in the !, like collect and collect!

IIRC from previous discussions, isn't this precisely the convention that
Scheme uses? (IIRC, this is where Matz got the idea for his particular
variation.)

> In my opinion, Ruby programs would
> look like spam then -- lots of exclamation
> points.

I think this is very much a matter of some combination of personal taste and
a matter of what some people have gotten used to. For some reason, many
Python users feel somewhat the same way about '{' and '}' in Ruby and Perl,
or about the use of a leading '$' for certain vars in Ruby and Perl--and
many people just never get used to them.

FWIW, I find the _seeming_ semantic inconsistency (or semantic
non-transparency if you will) to much more annoying than a few extra '!'
chars. This is the one of the few features of Ruby that I will probably
always find annoying.

> And what about the [] method -- would you
> change this to []! also?

I think this gets at the really *big* problem--backwards incompatibility
with *lots* of code and documentation!!!!

IMO, rather than (seemingly) trying to rationalize this design after the
fact and to argue against deep preferences that are typically not the sorts
of things that arguing can be reasonably expected to modify, we should
simply tell new Ruby users (who don't like this feature) at the outset that
it is unfortunately too late to make such a major change. (Plus Matz
probably wouldn't agree to it.)

Conrad


In This Thread